On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 03:07:52PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > Also I'm not entirely sure I like the usage, utilization names/metrics. > > > I would suggest to reverse them. Call the pure running number > > > 'utilization' and this scaled with capacity 'usage' or so. > > > > ok. i can invert 'usage' and 'utilization', which will give > > > > s/get_cpu_utilization/get_cpu_usage/ > > s/sgs->group_utilization/sgs->group_usage/
The confusion will have new dimensions added when we introduce scale-invariance too. Then the running number is already scaled by the current P-state compute capacity. But I don't have any better suggestions. > > s/cfs.usage_load_avg/cfs.utilization_load_avg/ I don't like using "load" for unweighted metrics. I associate load with something that may be weighted by priority like load_avg_contrib, and utilization with pure cpu utilization as in how many cycles is spend on a particular task. I called it "usage_util_avg" in my own patches, but "util_avg" might be better if we agree that utilization == usage. > > s/se->avg.usage_avg_contrib/se->avg.utilization_avg_contrib util_avg_contrib maybe to keep it shorter. > > s/__update_task_entity_usage/__update_task_entity_utilization > > s/__update_entity_usage_avg_contrib/__update_entity_utilization_avg_contrib Maybe use "util" here as well? Morten -- 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/
