On 27 April 2017 at 00:27, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hello, Vincent.
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 06:14:17PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> > + if (gcfs_rq->load.weight) {
>> > + long shares = calc_cfs_shares(gcfs_rq, gcfs_rq->tg);
>> >
>> > + load = min(gcfs_rq->runnable_load_avg *
>> > + shares / gcfs_rq->load.weight, shares);
>>
>> There is a unit problem above:
>> runnable_load_avg and shares are not in the same range but
>> runnable_load_avg and scale_load_down(gcfs_rq->load.weight) are so
>> you should use
>> gcfs_rq->runnable_load_avg * scale_load_down(shares) /
>> scale_load_down(gcfs_rq->load.weight).
>
> But the only difference there is that we lose accuracy in calculation;
> otherwise, the end results are the same, no?
Yes the end result is the same, it was mainly to point out the range
difference and explain why we need scale_load_down(shares) for the 2nd
argument of min.
This should also explain the warning issue you mentioned earlier
>
>> Hopefully both scale_load_down cancel between them
>> But the min should be then tested with scale_load_down(shares) and not
>> only shares
>
> Ah, that's right. The min should be against scaled down shares.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
