Re: [RFC] sched: make update_cpu_load_active care more than one tick

2015-09-09 Thread Byungchul Park
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:02:40AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 06:35:24PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote: > > From: Byungchul Park > > > > i found do_timer accounts other than one tick, so i made > > update_cpu_load_active care that. > > > > is it intended because

Re: [RFC] sched: make update_cpu_load_active care more than one tick

2015-09-09 Thread Byungchul Park
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:02:40AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 06:35:24PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote: > > From: Byungchul Park > > > > i found do_timer accounts other than one tick, so i made > > update_cpu_load_active care that. > > > > is it intended because

Re: [RFC] sched: make update_cpu_load_active care more than one tick

2015-09-09 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 06:35:24PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote: > From: Byungchul Park > > i found do_timer accounts other than one tick, so i made > update_cpu_load_active care that. > > is it intended because of its overhead? I think the idea was that the NO_HZ bits would deal with th

Re: [RFC] sched: make update_cpu_load_active care more than one tick

2015-09-08 Thread Byungchul Park
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 08:39:27AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 06:35:24PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote: > > From: Byungchul Park > > > > i found do_timer accounts other than one tick, so i made > > update_cpu_load_active care that. > > > > is it intended because

Re: [RFC] sched: make update_cpu_load_active care more than one tick

2015-08-17 Thread Byungchul Park
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 06:35:24PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote: > From: Byungchul Park > > i found do_timer accounts other than one tick, so i made > update_cpu_load_active care that. > > is it intended because of its overhead? hello, is there anyone who can tell me any opinion about t

[RFC] sched: make update_cpu_load_active care more than one tick

2015-08-13 Thread byungchul . park
From: Byungchul Park i found do_timer accounts other than one tick, so i made update_cpu_load_active care that. is it intended because of its overhead? Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park --- kernel/sched/fair.c |7 +-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/sc