On Tue, 27 May 2014, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 2014-05-26 at 18:19 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > @@ -1046,7 +1046,7 @@ static void update_numa_stats(struct numa_stats *ns, > > int nid) > > > > ns->nr_running += rq->nr_running; > > ns->load += weighted_cpuload(cpu); > > - ns->power += power_of(cpu); > > + ns->compute_capacity += power_of(cpu); > > power_of(cpu) as a capacity input looks odd now.. > > > @@ -1062,9 +1062,10 @@ static void update_numa_stats(struct numa_stats *ns, > > int nid) > > if (!cpus) > > return; > > > > - ns->load = (ns->load * SCHED_POWER_SCALE) / ns->power; > > - ns->capacity = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(ns->power, SCHED_POWER_SCALE); > > - ns->has_capacity = (ns->nr_running < ns->capacity); > > + ns->load = (ns->load * SCHED_POWER_SCALE) / ns->compute_capacity; > > + ns->task_capacity = > > + DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(ns->compute_capacity, SCHED_POWER_SCALE); > > ..as do SCHED_POWER_SCALE, update_cpu_power() etc.
The rest is renamed in a later patch. I wanted to split it into multiple patches to keep those changes manageable. Nicolas -- 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/
