On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 01:24:12PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:59:02PM +0800, T. Zhou wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:55PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
> > > +static void attach_entity_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct
> > >
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 03:52:48PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:22:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:15:28AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:21:27PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > >
> > > > yuyang said that
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:22:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:15:28AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:21:27PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > >
> > > yuyang said that switched_to don't need to consider task's load because it
> > > can have
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 03:52:48PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:22:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:15:28AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:21:27PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
yuyang said that switched_to
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:22:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:15:28AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:21:27PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
yuyang said that switched_to don't need to consider task's load because it
can have meaningless
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 01:24:12PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:59:02PM +0800, T. Zhou wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:55PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
+static void attach_entity_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct
sched_entity *se)
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:59:02PM +0800, T. Zhou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:55PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
> > +static void attach_entity_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct
> > sched_entity *se)
> > +{
> > + se->avg.last_update_time =
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:55PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
> +static void attach_entity_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct
> sched_entity *se)
> +{
> + se->avg.last_update_time = cfs_rq->avg.last_update_time;
> + cfs_rq->avg.load_avg += se->avg.load_avg;
> +
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 07:20:20AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> sched: Provide sched class and priority change statistics to task
>
> The sched class and priority changes make substantial impact for
> a task, but we really have not a quantitative understanding of how
> frequent they are, which makes
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:22:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > when did I say "don't need to consider..."?
> >
> > Doing more does not mean better, or just trivial. BTW, the task switched_to
> > does not have to be switched_from before.
>
> Correct, there's a few corner cases we need to
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:22:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
when did I say don't need to consider...?
Doing more does not mean better, or just trivial. BTW, the task switched_to
does not have to be switched_from before.
Correct, there's a few corner cases we need to consider.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 07:20:20AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
sched: Provide sched class and priority change statistics to task
The sched class and priority changes make substantial impact for
a task, but we really have not a quantitative understanding of how
frequent they are, which makes it
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:59:02PM +0800, T. Zhou wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:55PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
+static void attach_entity_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct
sched_entity *se)
+{
+ se-avg.last_update_time = cfs_rq-avg.last_update_time;
+
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:55PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
+static void attach_entity_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct
sched_entity *se)
+{
+ se-avg.last_update_time = cfs_rq-avg.last_update_time;
+ cfs_rq-avg.load_avg += se-avg.load_avg;
+
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:15:28AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:21:27PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> >
> > yuyang said that switched_to don't need to consider task's load because it
> > can have meaningless value. but i think considering task's load is better
> > than
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:15:28AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:21:27PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> >
> > yuyang said that switched_to don't need to consider task's load because it
> > can have meaningless value. but i think considering task's load is better
> > than
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 04:19:04PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > /* synchronize task with its prev cfs_rq */
> > > - if (!queued)
> > > - __update_load_avg(cfs_rq->avg.last_update_time,
> > > cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq)),
> > > - >avg,
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:21:27PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
>
> yuyang said that switched_to don't need to consider task's load because it
> can have meaningless value. but i think considering task's load is better
> than leaving it unattended at all. and we can also use switched_to if we
>
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 09:46:00AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:55PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
> > @@ -8023,16 +8036,7 @@ static void task_move_group_fair(struct task_struct
> > *p, int queued)
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > /* synchronize task
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 09:46:00AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:55PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
> > @@ -8023,16 +8036,7 @@ static void task_move_group_fair(struct task_struct
> > *p, int queued)
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > /* synchronize task
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:55PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
> @@ -8023,16 +8036,7 @@ static void task_move_group_fair(struct task_struct
> *p, int queued)
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> /* synchronize task with its prev cfs_rq */
> - if (!queued)
> -
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 06:41:45AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:55PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
> >
> > currently, a task load is synced with its cfs_rq, only when it
> > leaves from fair class. we also need to sync it with cfs_rq when
> > it returns back to
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:55PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
>
> currently, a task load is synced with its cfs_rq, only when it
> leaves from fair class. we also need to sync it with cfs_rq when
> it returns back to fair class, too.
Syncing it at the time it is switched to fair is
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 09:46:00AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:55PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
@@ -8023,16 +8036,7 @@ static void task_move_group_fair(struct task_struct
*p, int queued)
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
/* synchronize task with its prev
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 09:46:00AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:55PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
@@ -8023,16 +8036,7 @@ static void task_move_group_fair(struct task_struct
*p, int queued)
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
/* synchronize task with its prev
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:55PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
currently, a task load is synced with its cfs_rq, only when it
leaves from fair class. we also need to sync it with cfs_rq when
it returns back to fair class, too.
Syncing it at the time it is switched to fair is not
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:55PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
@@ -8023,16 +8036,7 @@ static void task_move_group_fair(struct task_struct
*p, int queued)
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
/* synchronize task with its prev cfs_rq */
- if (!queued)
-
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 06:41:45AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:55:55PM +0900, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
currently, a task load is synced with its cfs_rq, only when it
leaves from fair class. we also need to sync it with cfs_rq when
it returns back to fair
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:21:27PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
yuyang said that switched_to don't need to consider task's load because it
can have meaningless value. but i think considering task's load is better
than leaving it unattended at all. and we can also use switched_to if we
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:15:28AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:21:27PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
yuyang said that switched_to don't need to consider task's load because it
can have meaningless value. but i think considering task's load is better
than leaving it
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 04:19:04PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
/* synchronize task with its prev cfs_rq */
- if (!queued)
- __update_load_avg(cfs_rq-avg.last_update_time,
cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq)),
- se-avg, se-on_rq *
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:15:28AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:21:27PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
yuyang said that switched_to don't need to consider task's load because it
can have meaningless value. but i think considering task's load is better
than leaving it
17 00:00:00 2001
From: Byungchul Park
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:29:52 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] sched: sync with the cfs_rq when changing sched class
currently, a task load is synced with its cfs_rq, only when it
leaves from fair class. we also need to sync it with cfs_rq when
it returns back to
Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Byungchul Park byungchul.p...@lge.com
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:29:52 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] sched: sync with the cfs_rq when changing sched class
currently, a task load is synced with its cfs_rq, only when it
leaves from fair class. we also need to sync it with cfs_rq when
34 matches
Mail list logo
