On 13 April 2017 at 18:13, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 05:16:20PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> On 13 April 2017 at 15:39, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > >> > OK, so the reason util_avg varies is because we compute it wrong. And I >> > think we can easily fix that once we pull out all the factors (which >> > would mean your patch and the pulling out of weight patch which still >> > needs to be finished). >> >> That would be great to remove this unwanted variation. > > So the problem with the _avg stuff is that we include the d3 segment, > that is the unfinished current window. Since we only re-compute the _avg > whenever we roll over, the intent already seems to be to only compute it > on completed windows.
yes make sense > > But because 'complicated/expensive', its hard to not include d3 and thus > we get the wobble. > > Once we compute pure running/runnable sums, without extra contrib > factors, we can simply subtract our d3 term from sum when doing the > division and change the divider to LOAD_AVG_MAX*y, getting the stable > _avg over all completed windows. I'm going to make it a try to check that it removes the variation i'm seeing > > (you could do the same with factors, but then we get to do a bunch of > extra multiplications which aren't free). > >> > >> > But you're comparing against util_sum here, that behaves slightly >> > different. I think you want 'util_sum >= 1024 * (LOAD_AVG_MAX - 1024)' >> > instead. >> >> yes, the variation happens on the util_sum > > Well, for util_sum its simple to ignore the current window, which is > what the suggested equation does (note that LOAD_AVG_MAX*y == > LOAD_AVG_MAX-1024).