From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753168AbcARAXr (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:23:47 -0500
Received: from LGEAMRELO12.lge.com ([156.147.23.52]:37707 "EHLO
	lgeamrelo12.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752903AbcARAXp (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:23:45 -0500
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.121
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:23:31 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] sched: Improve cpu load accounting with nohz
Message-ID: <20160118002331.GB1914@X58A-UD3R>
References: <1452700891-21807-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <569810C4.7090900@arm.com>
 <20160114212704.GJ6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <56981FF2.6030700@arm.com>
 <20160115070749.GA1914@X58A-UD3R>
 <569924C4.8010903@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <569924C4.8010903@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 04:56:36PM +0000, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> Another point ... 'active=1' (function header: @active: !0 for NOHZ_FULL
> is a little bit misleading) is also true for when __update_cpu_load() is
> called from update_cpu_load_active(). In this case tickless_load
> wouldn't have to be set at all since pending_updates is 1,
> decay_load_missed() can handle that by bailing in case missed_updates = 0.

Hello Dietmar.

> 
> Couldn't we set tickless_load only in case:
> 
> unsigned long tickless_load = (active && pending_updates > 1) ?
> this_rq->cpu_load[0] : 0;

IMHO, this looks better even though it does not change much.

Thank you,
Byungchul