[...] >> In that same discussion ISTR a suggestion about adding avg_running time, >> as opposed to the current avg_runnable. The sum of avg_running should be >> much more accurate, and still react correctly to migrations. > > I haven't look in details but I agree that avg_running would be much > more accurate than avg_runnable and should probably fit the > requirement. Does it means that we could re-add the avg_running (or > something similar) that has disappeared during the review of load avg > tracking patchset ?
Are you referring to '[RFC PATCH 14/14] sched: implement usage tracking' https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/1/769 from Paul Turner? __update_entity_runnable_avg() has an additional parameter 'running' so that it can be called for a) sched_entities in update_entity_load_avg(): __update_entity_runnable_avg(..., se->on_rq, cfs_rq->curr == se)) b) rq's in update_rq_runnable_avg(): __update_entity_runnable_avg(..., runnable, runnable); I can see how it gives us two different signals for a sched_entity but for a rq? Do I miss something here? -- Dietmar [...] -- 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/
