Hi, minor comment below.
On 01/06/16 20:39, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > cpu utilization (cpu_util()) is defined as the cpu (original) capacity > capped cfs_rq->avg->util_avg signal of the root cfs_rq. > > With the current pelt version, the utilization of a task [en|de]queued > on/from a cfs_rq, representing a task group other than the root task group > on a cpu, is not immediately propagated down to the root cfs_rq. > > This makes decisions based on cpu_util() for scheduling or cpu frequency > settings less accurate in case tasks are running in task groups. > > This patch aggregates the task utilization only on the root cfs_rq, > essentially avoiding maintaining utilization for a se/cfs_rq representing > task groups other than the root task group (!entity_is_task(se) and > &rq_of(cfs_rq)->cfs != cfs_rq). > > The additional if/else condition to set @update_util in > __update_load_avg() is replaced in 'sched/fair: Change @running of > __update_load_avg() to @update_util' by providing the information whether > utilization has to be maintained via an argument to this function. > > The additional requirements for the alignment of the last_update_time of a > se and the root cfs_rq are handled by the patch 'sched/fair: Sync se with > root cfs_rq'. > > Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> > --- > kernel/sched/fair.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > index 218f8e83db73..212becd3708f 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > @@ -2705,6 +2705,7 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg > *sa, > u32 contrib; > unsigned int delta_w, scaled_delta_w, decayed = 0; > unsigned long scale_freq, scale_cpu; > + int update_util = 0; > > delta = now - sa->last_update_time; > /* > @@ -2725,6 +2726,12 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg > *sa, > return 0; > sa->last_update_time = now; > > + if (cfs_rq) { > + if (&rq_of(cfs_rq)->cfs == cfs_rq) Maybe we can wrap this sort of checks in a static inline improving readability? Best, - Juri