On 13 April 2017 at 20:06, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 04:59:15PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> On 13 April 2017 at 15:32, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 01:28:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > >> >> I still wonder about the whole !running vs !weight thing., >> > >> > Ah, since we use this for both util _and_ load, we need !running && >> > !weight, and it so happens that !weight implies !running. Is that it? >> >> exactly >> sorry, I should have started with that > > Damn, that just bring me around to wondering why running is the right > condition to create lost-time. > > Because for runnable we want everything that has weight.
I have considered that the waiting time doesn't have to be scaled unlike the running time of the runnable because waiting is the same whatever the current capacity >