From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756765Ab3EGGR5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2013 02:17:57 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:11499 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754175Ab3EGGR4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2013 02:17:56 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,627,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="309371005" Message-ID: <51889C8A.5000806@intel.com> Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 14:17:46 +0800 From: Alex Shi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: Paul Turner , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Borislav Petkov , Namhyung Kim , Mike Galbraith , Morten Rasmussen , Vincent Guittot , Preeti U Murthy , Viresh Kumar , LKML , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel , Michael Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] sched: compute runnable load avg in cpu_load and cpu_avg_load_per_task References: <1367804711-30308-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1367804711-30308-6-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <20130506101936.GE13861@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20130506111041.GA15446@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: <20130506111041.GA15446@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/06/2013 07:10 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > The runnable_avgs themselves actually have a fair bit of history in >> > them already (50% is last 32ms); but given that they don't need to be >> > cut-off to respond to load being migrated I'm guessing we could >> > actually potentially get by with just "instaneous" and "use averages" >> > where appropriate? > Sure,. worth a try. If things fall over we can always look at it again. > >> > We always end up having to re-pick/tune them based on a variety of >> > workloads; if we can eliminate them I think it would be a win. > Agreed, esp. the plethora of weird idx things we currently have. If we need to > re-introduce something it would likely only be the busy case and for that we > can immediately link to the balance interval or so. > > > I like to have try bases on this patchset. :) First, we can remove the idx, to check if the removing is fine for our benchmarks, kbuild, dbench, tbench, hackbench, aim7, specjbb etc. If there are some regression. we can think more. -- Thanks Alex