>
> blocked_load_avg is the expected "to wake" contribution from tasks
> already assigned to this rq.
>
> e.g. this could be:
> load = this_rq->cfs.runnable_load_avg + this_rq->cfs.blocked_load_avg;
Current load balance doesn't consider slept task's load which is
represented by blocked_load_avg. And the slept task is not on_rq, so
consider it in load balance is a little strange.
But your concern is worth to try. I will change the patchset and give
the testing results.
>
> Although, in general I have a major concern with the current implementation:
>
> The entire reason for stability with the bottom up averages is that
> when load migrates between cpus we are able to migrate it between the
> tracked sums.
>
> Stuffing observed averages of these into the load_idxs loses that
> mobility; we will have to stall (as we do today for idx > 0) before we
> can recognize that a cpu's load has truly left it; this is a very
> similar problem to the need to stably track this for group shares
> computation.
>
> To that end, I would rather see the load_idx disappear completely:
> (a) We can calculate the imbalance purely from delta (runnable_avg +
> blocked_avg)
> (b) It eliminates a bad tunable.
I also show the similar concern of load_idx months ago. seems overlooked. :)
>
>> - return cpu_rq(cpu)->load.weight;
>> + return (unsigned long)cpu_rq(cpu)->cfs.runnable_load_avg;
>
> Isn't this going to truncate on the 32-bit case?
I guess not, the old load.weight is unsigned long, and runnable_load_avg
is smaller than the load.weight. so it should be fine.
btw, according to above reason, guess move runnable_load_avg to
'unsigned long' type is ok, do you think so?
>
--
Thanks
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
