On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 15:06 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 02:07 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > 3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > ------------------ > > > > From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijls...@chello.nl> > > > > commit 5167e8d5417bf5c322a703d2927daec727ea40dd upstream. > > > > Thanks to Charles Wang for spotting the defects in the current code: > > > > - If we go idle during the sample window -- after sampling, we get a > > negative bias because we can negate our own sample. > > > > - If we wake up during the sample window we get a positive bias > > because we push the sample to a known active period. > > > > So rewrite the entire nohz load-avg muck once again, now adding > > copious documentation to the code. > [...] > > Based on <http://bugs.debian.org/674153>, I think we also need: > > 556061b sched/nohz: Fix rq->cpu_load[] calculations > 5aaa0b7 sched/nohz: Fix rq->cpu_load calculations some more > > Does this ('sched/nohz: Rewrite and fix load-avg computation -- again') > depend in any way on those, or are they separate fixes?
they might touch on a few entry points but the logic is separate. ->cpu_load[] is per-cpu weight tracking for the load-balancer. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
