On 8/16/12, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 20:28 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>
>> nr_uninterruptible is coupled with tasks on the runqueue to calculate
>> nr_active numbers.
>
> It is not.. nr_uninterruptible is incremented on the cpu the task goes
> to sleep and decremented on the cpu doing the wakeup.
>
If nr_uninterruptible's life cycle is this simple then, while CPU
goes down, nr_uninterruptible count will be decremented when all the
tasks are moved to other CPUs and should be fine.
> This means that nr_uninterruptible is a complete mess and any per-cpu
> value isn't meaningful at all.
>
Well, if nr_uninterruptible is a mess, then this patch has no meaning.
And also I think migrate_nr_uninterruptible() is meaning less too.
> It is quite possible to always have the inc on cpu0 and the decrement on
> cpu1, yielding results like:
>
> {1000, -1000} for an effective nr_uninterruptible = 0. Taking either cpu
> down will then migrate whatever delta it has to another cpu, but there
> might only be a single task, yet the delta is +-1000.
>
>> In calc_load_fold_active(), this nr_active numbers are used to
>> calculate delta. This is how I understand this part and seeing some
>> impact.
>
> You understand wrong, please re-read the comment added in commit
> 5167e8d5.
>
Yes, reading.
Thanks,
Rakib.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
