From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753292Ab3EJN6K (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 May 2013 09:58:10 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:5677 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753058Ab3EJN6I (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 May 2013 09:58:08 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,648,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="334870215" Message-ID: <518CFCE9.60105@intel.com> Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 21:58:01 +0800 From: Alex Shi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Turner CC: Peter Zijlstra , 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 6/7] sched: consider runnable load average in move_tasks References: <1367804711-30308-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1367804711-30308-7-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <20130506150428.GD15446@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> <51888E87.2090506@intel.com> <5189ACD2.1080105@intel.com> <518AFAC6.5010906@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <518AFAC6.5010906@intel.com> 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 05/09/2013 09:24 AM, Alex Shi wrote: > Paul, > > I am wondering if the following patch needed. > The wakeuped migrated task will __synchronize_entity_decay(se); in migrate_task_fair, > then it needs to set `se->avg.last_runnable_update -= (-se->avg.decay_count) << 20' > before update_entity_load_avg, in order to avoid slept time is updated twice for > se.avg.load_avg_contrib in both __syncchronize and update_entity_load_avg. > > but if the slept task is waked up from self cpu, it miss the last_runnable_update before > update_entity_load_avg(se, 0, 1), so the slept time was used twice in both functions. > Is that right? Would you like to give some comments on this, Paul? -- Thanks Alex