From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: vincent.guittot@linaro.org (Vincent Guittot) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:18:47 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v5 09/12] sched: add usage_load_avg In-Reply-To: <20140911111736.GV3190@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1409051215-16788-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1409051215-16788-10-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20140911111736.GV3190@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 11 September 2014 13:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 01:06:52PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> index 5c2c885..7dfd584 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/sched.h >> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h >> @@ -1073,10 +1073,10 @@ struct sched_avg { >> * above by 1024/(1-y). Thus we only need a u32 to store them for all >> * choices of y < 1-2^(-32)*1024. >> */ >> - u32 runnable_avg_sum, runnable_avg_period; >> + u32 runnable_avg_sum, runnable_avg_period, running_avg_sum; > > Seeing how we use runnable_avg_period for both runnable and running, > does it make sense to remove the runnable part of it from the name? It's right > > Also, 4 byte hole here, not sure we've got anything useful to stuff in > it though. I can move all u32 declaration at the end of the struct unless it has been put before any u64 for good reason > >> u64 last_runnable_update; >> s64 decay_count; >> - unsigned long load_avg_contrib; >> + unsigned long load_avg_contrib, usage_avg_contrib; >> }; >> > > Man, I should go look at Yuyang's rewrite of this all again. I just > tried to figure out the decay stuff and my head hurts ;-)