On 05/06/2013 03:49 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 01:39 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Rough test done:
>
>>
>> 1, change back the tg_weight in calc_tg_weight() to use tg_load_contrib not
>> direct load.
>
> This way stop the regression of patch 7.
>
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 6f4f14b..c770f8d 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -1037,8 +1037,8 @@ static inline long calc_tg_weight(struct task_group
>> *tg, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>> * update_cfs_rq_load_contribution().
>> */
>> tg_weight = atomic64_read(&tg->load_avg);
>> - tg_weight -= cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib;
>> - tg_weight += cfs_rq->load.weight;
>> + //tg_weight -= cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib;
>> + //tg_weight += cfs_rq->load.weight;
>>
>> return tg_weight;
>> }
>>
>> 2, another try is follow the current calc_tg_weight, so remove the follow
>> change.
>
> This way show even better results than only patch 1~6.
how much better to the first change?
>
> But the way Preeti suggested doesn't works...
What's the Preeti suggestion? :)
>
> May be we should record some explanation about this change here, do we?
I don't know why we need this, PJT, would you like to tell us why the
calc_tg_weight use cfs_rq->load.weight not cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib?
>
> Regards,
> Michael Wang
>
>>
>>>>> @@ -3045,7 +3045,7 @@ static long effective_load(struct task_group *tg,
>>>>> int cpu, long wl, long wg)
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * w = rw_i + @wl
>>>>> */
>>>>> - w = se->my_q->load.weight + wl;
>>>>> + w = se->my_q->tg_load_contrib + wl;
>>
>> Would you like to try them?
>>
>>
>
--
Thanks
Alex
--
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/
