On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 09:01:00AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 03:35:06PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 06:17:21PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:56:51PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > @@ -4645,11 +4674,11 @@ void cpu_load_update_nohz(int active)
> > > > void cpu_load_update_active(struct rq *this_rq)
> > > > {
> > > > unsigned long load = weighted_cpuload(cpu_of(this_rq));
> > > > - /*
> > > > - * See the mess around cpu_load_update_idle() /
> > > > cpu_load_update_nohz().
> > > > - */
> > > > - this_rq->last_load_update_tick = jiffies;
> > > > - __cpu_load_update(this_rq, load, 1, 1);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (tick_nohz_tick_stopped())
> > > > + cpu_load_update_nohz(this_rq, READ_ONCE(jiffies), load);
> > > > + else
> > > > + cpu_load_update_periodic(this_rq, load);
> > >
> > > Considering it further, I wonder if needing it.
> > > (Sorry if I missed something.)
> > >
> > > Case 1. tickless -> (scheduler_tick) -> tickless
> > >
> > > I am not sure for this case if the rq's load can be changed or not,
> > > especially, if the rq's load can be changed *at this point*.
> > > Please remind that the load[0] is set here.
> >
> > load[0] won't change because it's set by cpu_load_update_nohz_start().
> > But all the other load[idx] need to be decayed further.
>
> Ah. Right. Sched tick will be handled even in the case 1...
>
> I like your patches. But I am still wondering if the sched tick handling is
> necessary even in the case 1. Of course it's another problem though.
Right, we could indeed ignore those ticks happening in dynticks/idle and just
wait
for the end of the dynticks frame that calls cpu_load_update_stop(). In fact
the first version of this patchset did that but Thomas didn't seem to like it.
That said more local updates means less need for remote updates through
cpu_load_update_idle().
