On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 03:17:29PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > >> > >> IMHO, we should apply the same policy than the one i mentioned for > >> task. So the load_avg of an entity or a cfs_rq will not be disturbed > >> by an old but no more valid weight > >> > > > > Well, I see your point. But the problem is what matters is load_avg vs. > > load_avg, not a > > load_avg itself. So, if load_avg1 discards old weight if weight is changed, > > but load_avg2 > > has no weight changed or has weight changed, the comparison load_avg1 vs. > > load_avg2 is not > > fair, but too impacted by the new weight. The point is, we count in > > history, so connt in the > > real history, which is the whole point of why we count the history. Make > > sense? > > IIUC, you want to soften the impact of weight change on cfs_rq-> load_avg ? >
Yes, that would be the effect. Isn't the entire effort starting from PJT and Ben up to now to soften the extremely dynamic changes (runnable or not, weight change, etc)? Assume task does not change weight much, but group entity does as Peter mentioned. -- 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/
