On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 20:03 +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > Isn't there a theoretical problem with the scale_load() on CONFIG_64BIT > machines on tip/sched/core? load.weight has a higher resolution than > runnable_load_avg (and so the values in the rq->cpu_load[] array). > Theoretically because [forkexec|wake]_idx is 0 so [target|source]_load() > is nothing else than weighted_cpuload().
I see a not so theoretical problem with my rfc in that I forgot to scale_load_down() if that's what you mean. (changes nothing, reality was just extra special unadulterated;) -Mike