On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 09:43:47AM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 02:08:01PM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 06:30:55PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > Introduces the blocked utilization, the utilization counter-part to > > > cfs_rq->utilization_load_avg. It is the sum of sched_entity utilization > > > contributions of entities that were recently on the cfs_rq that are > > > currently blocked. Combined with sum of contributions of entities > > > currently on the cfs_rq or currently running > > > (cfs_rq->utilization_load_avg) this can provide a more stable average > > > view of the cpu usage. > > > > So it would be nice if you add performance numbers for all these patches > > that add accounting muck.. > > Total scheduler latency (as in hackbench?), individual function > latencies, or something else?
Yeah, good question that. Something that is good at running this code a lot. So dequeue_entity() -> dequeue_entity_load_avg() -> update_entity_load_avg() -> __update_entity_runnable_avg() seems a reliable way into here, and IIRC hackbench does a lot of that, so yes, that might just work. -- 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/
