Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:42:17 +0800 | From | Aaron Lu <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: delay update_tg_load_avg() for cfs_rq's removed load |
| |
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 05:22:26PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 20/07/2023 17:02, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 at 16:42, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 03:10:30PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > >>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 at 15:29, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 11:47:06AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 at 10:01, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 01:18:26PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > > [...] > > > What was wrong with your proposal to limit the update inside > > update_tg_load_avg() ? except maybe s/1000000/NSEC_PER_MSEC/ and > > computing delta after testing the time since last update > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > index a80a73909dc2..e48fd0e6982d 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > @@ -3665,6 +3665,7 @@ static inline bool cfs_rq_is_decayed(struct > > cfs_rq *cfs_rq) > > static inline void update_tg_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq) > > { > > long delta = cfs_rq->avg.load_avg - cfs_rq->tg_load_avg_contrib; > > + u64 now = cfs_rq_clock_pelt(cfs_rq); > > Could this be `u64 now = sched_clock_cpu()` like in > migrate_se_pelt_lag() or newidle_balance() to avoid the time morphing > due to PELT's frequency and uArch invariance?
Yes, will use sched_clock_cpu() instead of cfs_rq_clock_pelt(). Thanks.
> > > > /* > > * No need to update load_avg for root_task_group as it is not used. > > [...] >
| |