lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/3] nohz_full: update cpu load fix in nohz_full
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 08:35:12PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> We are not always 0 when update nohz cpu load, after nohz_full enabled.
> But current code still treat the cpu as idle. that is incorrect.
> Fix it to use correct cpu_load.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/proc.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/proc.c b/kernel/sched/proc.c
> index 16f5a30..f1441f0 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/proc.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/proc.c
> @@ -568,8 +568,14 @@ void update_cpu_load_nohz(void)
> /*
> * We were idle, this means load 0, the current load might be
> * !0 due to remote wakeups and the sort.
> + * or we may has only one task and in NO_HZ_FULL, then still use
> + * normal cpu load.
> */
> - __update_cpu_load(this_rq, 0, pending_updates);
> + if (this_rq->cfs.h_nr_running) {
> + unsigned load = get_rq_runnable_load(this_rq);
> + __update_cpu_load(this_rq, load, pending_updates);
> + } else
> + __update_cpu_load(this_rq, 0, pending_updates);

But decay_load_missed() doesnt handle non 0 loads, right? It probably make more sense
to first fix __update_cpu_load() to make it handle this kind of thing before fixing the caller.

Now you had patches that remove the cpu_load secondary idx I think? You should move this patch to
that series.

> }
> raw_spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
> }
> --
> 1.8.1.2
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-10 15:21    [W:0.146 / U:0.952 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site