From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 21:41:56 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v5 11/12] sched: replace capacity_factor by utilization In-Reply-To: References: <1409051215-16788-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1409051215-16788-12-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20140911161517.GA3190@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com> Message-ID: <20140914194156.GC2832@worktop.localdomain> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 07:26:48PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On 11 September 2014 18:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 01:06:54PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > >> +static inline int group_has_free_capacity(struct sg_lb_stats *sgs, > >> + struct lb_env *env) > >> { > >> + if ((sgs->group_capacity_orig * 100) > > >> + (sgs->group_utilization * env->sd->imbalance_pct)) > >> + return 1; > >> + > >> + if (sgs->sum_nr_running < sgs->group_weight) > >> + return 1; > >> > >> + return 0; > >> +} > >> > >> +static inline int group_is_overloaded(struct sg_lb_stats *sgs, > >> + struct lb_env *env) > >> +{ > >> + if (sgs->sum_nr_running <= sgs->group_weight) > >> + return 0; > >> > >> + if ((sgs->group_capacity_orig * 100) < > >> + (sgs->group_utilization * env->sd->imbalance_pct)) > >> + return 1; > >> > >> + return 0; > >> } > > > > I'm confused about the utilization vs capacity_orig. I see how we should > > 1st point is that I should compare utilization vs capacity and not > capacity_orig. > I should have replaced capacity_orig by capacity in the functions > above when i move the utilization statistic from > rq->avg.runnable_avg_sum to cfs.usage_load_avg. > rq->avg.runnable_avg_sum was measuring all activity on the cpu whereas > cfs.usage_load_avg integrates only cfs tasks > > With this change, we don't need sgs->group_capacity_orig anymore but > only sgs->group_capacity. So sgs->group_capacity_orig can be removed > as it's no more used in the code as sg_capacity_factor has been > removed Yes, but.. so I suppose we need to add DVFS accounting and remove cpufreq from the capacity thing. Otherwise I don't see it make sense.