On 01/14/2013 09:59 PM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 03:30:30AM +0000, Alex Shi wrote:
>> On 01/10/2013 07:40 PM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
>>>>> #undef P64
>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>> index ee015b8..7bfbd69 100644
>>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>> @@ -1495,8 +1495,12 @@ static void update_cfs_rq_blocked_load(struct
>>>>> cfs_rq *cfs_rq, int force_update)
>>>>>
>>>>> static inline void update_rq_runnable_avg(struct rq *rq, int runnable)
>>>>> {
>>>>> + u32 period;
>>>>> __update_entity_runnable_avg(rq->clock_task, &rq->avg, runnable);
>>>>> __update_tg_runnable_avg(&rq->avg, &rq->cfs);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + period = rq->avg.runnable_avg_period ? rq->avg.runnable_avg_period : 1;
>>>>> + rq->util = rq->avg.runnable_avg_sum * 100 / period;
>>> The existing tg->runnable_avg and cfs_rq->tg_runnable_contrib variables
>>> both holds
>>> rq->avg.runnable_avg_sum / rq->avg.runnable_avg_period scaled by
>>> NICE_0_LOAD (1024). Why not use one of the existing variables instead of
>>> introducing a new one?
>>
>> we want to a rq variable that reflect the utilization of the cpu, not of
>> the tg
>
> It is the same thing for the root tg. You use exactly the same variables
> for calculating rq->util as is used to calculate both tg->runnable_avg and
> cfs_rq->tg_runnable_contrib in __update_tg_runnable_avg(). The only
> difference is that you scale by 100 while __update_tg_runnable_avg()
> scale by NICE_0_LOAD.
yes, the root tg->runnable_avg has same meaningful, but normal tg not,
and more important it is hidden by CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED,
--
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/
