lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 07/18] sched: compute runnable load avg in cpu_load and cpu_avg_load_per_task
On 12/12/2012 11:57 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> On 12/10/2012 01:52 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>> They are the base values in load balance, update them with rq runnable
>> load average, then the load balance will consider runnable load avg
>> naturally.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/core.c | 4 ++--
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++--
>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index 96fa5f1..0ecb907 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -2487,7 +2487,7 @@ static void __update_cpu_load(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long this_load,
>> void update_idle_cpu_load(struct rq *this_rq)
>> {
>> unsigned long curr_jiffies = ACCESS_ONCE(jiffies);
>> - unsigned long load = this_rq->load.weight;
>> + unsigned long load = (unsigned long)this_rq->cfs.runnable_load_avg;
>> unsigned long pending_updates;
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -2537,7 +2537,7 @@ static void update_cpu_load_active(struct rq *this_rq)
>> * See the mess around update_idle_cpu_load() / update_cpu_load_nohz().
>> */
>> this_rq->last_load_update_tick = jiffies;
>> - __update_cpu_load(this_rq, this_rq->load.weight, 1);
>> + __update_cpu_load(this_rq, this_rq->cfs.runnable_load_avg, 1);
>>
>> calc_load_account_active(this_rq);
>> }
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 61c8d24..6d893a6 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -2680,7 +2680,7 @@ static void dequeue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
>> /* Used instead of source_load when we know the type == 0 */
>> static unsigned long weighted_cpuload(const int cpu)
>> {
>> - return cpu_rq(cpu)->load.weight;
>> + return (unsigned long)cpu_rq(cpu)->cfs.runnable_load_avg;
>
> I was wondering why you have typecasted the cfs.runnable_load_avg to
> unsigned long.Have you looked into why it was declared as u64 in the
> first place?

PJT:
Could we changed the cfs.runnable_load_avg to unsigned long? since it's
a unsigned long value multiple a value less then 1.

>
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -2727,7 +2727,7 @@ static unsigned long cpu_avg_load_per_task(int cpu)
>> unsigned long nr_running = ACCESS_ONCE(rq->nr_running);
>>
>> if (nr_running)
>> - return rq->load.weight / nr_running;
>> + return rq->cfs.runnable_load_avg / nr_running;
>
> rq->cfs.runnable_load_avg is u64 type.you will need to typecast it here
> also right? how does this division work? because the return type is
> unsigned long.

Yes, a clear cast is better.
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>
> Regards
> Preeti U Murthy
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-12-12 07:21    [W:0.211 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site