On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:49:41AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > I have run a quick test with your patches and schbench on my platform. > > I haven't been able to reproduce your regression but my platform is > > quite different from yours (only 8 cores without SMT) > > But most importantly, the parent cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg never > > reaches 0 (or almost 0) when it is idle. Instead, it still has a > > runnable_load_avg (this is not due to rounding computation) whereas > > runnable_load_avg should be 0 > > Heh, let me try that out. Probably a silly mistake somewhere.
This is from the follow-up patch. I was confused. Because we don't propagate decays, we still should decay the runnable_load_avg; otherwise, we end up accumulating errors in the counter. I'll drop the last patch. Thanks. -- tejun
