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 S1754523AbcASNF0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 19 Jan 2016 08:05:26 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:35841 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754462AbcASNFR (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 19 Jan 2016 08:05:17 -0500
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:04:57 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>, perterz@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: <20160119130457.GB6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
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 (2012-12-30)
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:
> Couldn't we set tickless_load only in case:
> 
> unsigned long tickless_load = (active && pending_updates > 1) ?
> this_rq->cpu_load[0] : 0;
> 
> Even though update_cpu_load_nohz() can call with pending_updates=1 and
> active=1 but then we don't have to decay.

decay_load_missed() has an early bail for !missed, which will be tickled
with pending_updates == 1.

What I was thinking of doing however is:

--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -4445,13 +4445,15 @@ static void __update_cpu_load(struct rq
 
 		old_load = this_rq->cpu_load[i];
 		old_load = decay_load_missed(old_load, pending_updates - 1, i);
-		old_load -= decay_load_missed(tickless_load, pending_updates - 1, i);
-		/*
-		 * old_load can never be a negative value because a decayed
-		 * tickless_load cannot be greater than the original
-		 * tickless_load.
-		 */
-		old_load += tickless_load;
+		if (tickless_load) {
+			old_load -= decay_load_missed(tickless_load, pending_updates - 1, i);
+			/*
+			 * old_load can never be a negative value because a
+			 * decayed tickless_load cannot be greater than the
+			 * original tickless_load.
+			 */
+			old_load += tickless_load;
+		}
 		new_load = this_load;
 		/*
 		 * Round up the averaging division if load is increasing. This


Since regardless of the pending_updates, none of that makes sense if
!tickless_load.