On 03/27/2013 12:33 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 03/26/2013 06:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 13:25 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>> +static bool is_light_task(struct task_struct *p) >>> +{ >>> + /* A light task runs less than 20% in average */ >>> + return ((p->se.avg.runnable_avg_sum * 5) < >>> + (p->se.avg.runnable_avg_period)); >>> +} >> >> OK, so we have a 'problem' here, we initialize runnable_avg_* to 0, but >> we want to 'assume' a fresh task is fully 'loaded'. IIRC Alex ran into >> this as well. >> >> PJT, do you have any sane solution for this, I forgot what the result >> of the last discussion was -- was there any? > > The conclusion after last discussion between PJT and Alex was that the > load contribution of a fresh task be set to "full" during "__sched_fork()". > > task->se.avg.load_avg_contrib = task->se.load.weight during > __sched_fork() is reflected in the latest power aware scheduler patchset > by Alex.
Yes, the new forked runnable load was set as full utilisation in V5 power aware scheduling. PJT, Mike and I both agree on this. PJT just discussion how to give the full load to new forked task. and we get agreement in my coming V6 power aware scheduling patchset. > > Thanks > > Regards > Preeti U Murthy >> > -- Thanks Alex -- 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/