On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:47:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Also, should we do the below? At this point se->on_rq is still 0 so
> reweight_entity() will not update (dequeue/enqueue) the accounting, but
> we'll have just accounted the 'old' load.weight.
>
> Doing it this way around we'll first update the weight and then account
> it, which seems more accurate.
I think the original looks ok.
The account_entity_enqueue() adds child entity's load.weight to parent's load:
update_load_add(&cfs_rq->load, se->load.weight)
Then recalculate the shares.
Then reweight_entity() resets the parent entity's load.weight.
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 700eb548315f..d2efef565aed 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -3009,8 +3009,8 @@ enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct
> sched_entity *se, int flags)
> */
> update_curr(cfs_rq);
> enqueue_entity_load_avg(cfs_rq, se);
> - account_entity_enqueue(cfs_rq, se);
> update_cfs_shares(cfs_rq);
> + account_entity_enqueue(cfs_rq, se);
>
> if (flags & ENQUEUE_WAKEUP) {
> place_entity(cfs_rq, se, 0);
--
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/
