On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 04:11:06AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 07:12:41PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 03:47:15PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > index 1be042a..3419f6c 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > @@ -2711,6 +2711,17 @@ static inline void update_load_avg(struct
> > > sched_entity *se, int update_tg)
> > >
> > > static void attach_entity_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct
> > > sched_entity *se)
> > > {
> > > + /*
> > > + * in case of migration and cgroup-change, more care should be taken
> > > + * because se's cfs_rq was changed, that means calling __update_load_avg
> > > + * with new cfs_rq->avg.last_update_time is meaningless. so we skip the
> > > + * update here. we have to update it with prev cfs_rq just before
> > > changing
> > > + * se's cfs_rq, and get here soon.
> > > + */
> > > + if (se->avg.last_update_time)
> > > + __update_load_avg(cfs_rq->avg.last_update_time,
> > > cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq)),
> > > + &se->avg, 0, 0, NULL);
> > > +
> > > se->avg.last_update_time = cfs_rq->avg.last_update_time;
> > > cfs_rq->avg.load_avg += se->avg.load_avg;
> > > cfs_rq->avg.load_sum += se->avg.load_sum;
> >
> > you seem to have forgotten to remove the same logic from
> > enqueue_entity_load_avg(), which will now call __update_load_avg()
> > twice.
>
> In case of enqueue_entity_load_avg(), that seems to be ok.
>
> However, the problem is that he made it "entangled":
>
> In enqueue_entity_load_avg():
>
> if (migrated)
> attach_entity_load_avg();
>
> while in attach_entity_load_avg():
>
> if (!migrated)
> __update_load_avg();
>
> so, if attach() is called from enqueue(), that if() is never true.
in case of migration, we should not call __update_load_avg() when attaching,
because se->avg.last_update_time is not meaningless on changed cfs_rq. that
is why attach_entity_load_avg() conditionally calls __update_load_avg().
enqueue() calls attach() only when migrating, so the if() should be never
true. i think it is normal. is it a problem?
>
> To Byungchul,
>
> 1) I suggest you not entangle the entire series by mixing problem
i think i didn't mix any problems. i solved each problem indivisually.
> sovling with code manipulating. That said, it is better you
> first solve the "move between task group" problem and the
> switch_to/from problem (if it is a problem, either way, comment
patch 2, 3 solve the former, and patch 4 solves the latter.
> with your explanation to how you deal with the lost record and why).
how i deal with the lost record, is the "decaying" as you can see easily.
i think it is the most natural way to deal with it.
> 2) After that, make the code cleaner, without change to logic, especially
> avoid entangling the logic in order to do the code manipulation.
i think i should modify patches if i entangled code, and could you tell me
where i did it?
> 3) If you don't hate upper case letter, use it properly.
i will try it.
thanks,
byungchul
>
> If it helps.
>
> Thanks,
> Yuyang
> --
> 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/
--
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/
