The cpu_load decays on time according past cpu load of rq. New sched_avg decays 
on tasks' load of time. Now we has 2 kind decay for cpu_load. That is a kind of 
redundancy. And increase the system load in sched_tick etc.

This patch trying to remove the cpu_load decay. And fixed a nohz_full bug by 
the way. 

There are 5 load_idx used for cpu_load in sched_domain. busy_idx and idle_idx 
are not zero usually, but newidle_idx, wake_idx and forkexec_idx are all zero 
on every arch. A shortcut to remove cpu_Load decay in the first patch. just one 
line patch for this change. :)

I have tested the patchset on my pandaES board, 2 cores ARM Cortex A9.
hackbench thread/pipe performance increased nearly 10% with this patchset! That 
do surprise me!

        latest kernel 527d1511310a89            + this patchset
hackbench -T -g 10 -f 40
        23.25"                                  21.7"
        23.16"                                  19.99"
        24.24"                                  21.53"
hackbench -p -g 10 -f 40
        26.52"                                  22.48"
        23.89"                                  24.00"
        25.65"                                  23.06"
hackbench -P -g 10 -f 40
        20.14"                                  19.37"
        19.96"                                  19.76"
        21.76"                                  21.54"

The git tree for this patchset at:
 g...@github.com:alexshi/power-scheduling.git no-load-idx 
Since Fengguang had included this tree into his kernel testing system. and I 
haven't get a regression report until now. I suppose it is fine for x86 system.

But anyway, since the scheduler change will effect all archs. and hackbench is 
only benchmark I found now for this patchset. I'd like to see more testing and 
talking on this patchset.

Regards
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/

Reply via email to