From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.p...@lge.com>
i found do_timer accounts other than one tick, so i made
update_cpu_load_active care that.
is it intended because of its overhead?
Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.p...@lge.com>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 7 +++++--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index ffa70dc..cd3d98f 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -4506,12 +4506,15 @@ void update_cpu_load_nohz(void)
*/
void update_cpu_load_active(struct rq *this_rq)
{
+ unsigned long curr_jiffies = READ_ONCE(jiffies);
+ unsigned long pending_updates;
unsigned long load = this_rq->cfs.runnable_load_avg;
/*
* See the mess around update_idle_cpu_load() / update_cpu_load_nohz().
*/
- this_rq->last_load_update_tick = jiffies;
- __update_cpu_load(this_rq, load, 1);
+ pending_updates = curr_jiffies - this_rq->last_load_update_tick;
+ this_rq->last_load_update_tick = curr_jiffies;
+ __update_cpu_load(this_rq, load, pending_updates);
}
/* Used instead of source_load when we know the type == 0 */
--
1.7.9.5
--
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/
