From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754343AbaIKLSG (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 07:18:06 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:43393 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754189AbaIKLRv (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 07:17:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:17:36 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Vincent Guittot Cc: mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, riel@redhat.com, Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com, efault@gmx.de, nicolas.pitre@linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/12] sched: add usage_load_avg Message-ID: <20140911111736.GV3190@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1409051215-16788-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1409051215-16788-10-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1409051215-16788-10-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 01:06:52PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > index 5c2c885..7dfd584 100644 > --- a/include/linux/sched.h > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h > @@ -1073,10 +1073,10 @@ struct sched_avg { > * above by 1024/(1-y). Thus we only need a u32 to store them for all > * choices of y < 1-2^(-32)*1024. > */ > - u32 runnable_avg_sum, runnable_avg_period; > + u32 runnable_avg_sum, runnable_avg_period, running_avg_sum; Seeing how we use runnable_avg_period for both runnable and running, does it make sense to remove the runnable part of it from the name? Also, 4 byte hole here, not sure we've got anything useful to stuff in it though. > u64 last_runnable_update; > s64 decay_count; > - unsigned long load_avg_contrib; > + unsigned long load_avg_contrib, usage_avg_contrib; > }; > Man, I should go look at Yuyang's rewrite of this all again. I just tried to figure out the decay stuff and my head hurts ;-) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:17:36 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v5 09/12] sched: add usage_load_avg In-Reply-To: <1409051215-16788-10-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> References: <1409051215-16788-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1409051215-16788-10-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20140911111736.GV3190@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 01:06:52PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > index 5c2c885..7dfd584 100644 > --- a/include/linux/sched.h > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h > @@ -1073,10 +1073,10 @@ struct sched_avg { > * above by 1024/(1-y). Thus we only need a u32 to store them for all > * choices of y < 1-2^(-32)*1024. > */ > - u32 runnable_avg_sum, runnable_avg_period; > + u32 runnable_avg_sum, runnable_avg_period, running_avg_sum; Seeing how we use runnable_avg_period for both runnable and running, does it make sense to remove the runnable part of it from the name? Also, 4 byte hole here, not sure we've got anything useful to stuff in it though. > u64 last_runnable_update; > s64 decay_count; > - unsigned long load_avg_contrib; > + unsigned long load_avg_contrib, usage_avg_contrib; > }; > Man, I should go look at Yuyang's rewrite of this all again. I just tried to figure out the decay stuff and my head hurts ;-)