On 14/10/16 09:24, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On 13 October 2016 at 23:34, Vincent Guittot <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On 13 October 2016 at 20:49, Dietmar Eggemann <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On 13/10/16 17:48, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>>> On 13 October 2016 at 17:52, Joseph Salisbury >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On 10/13/2016 06:58 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12 October 2016 at 18:21, Joseph Salisbury >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/12/2016 08:20 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8 October 2016 at 13:49, Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8 October 2016 at 10:39, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> * Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:38:23PM -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
[...] >>> When I create a tg_root/tg_x/tg_y_1 and a tg_root/tg_x/tg_y_2 group, the >>> tg_x->load_avg >>> becomes > 6*1024 before any tasks ran in it. >> >> This is normal as se->avg.load_avg is initialized to >> scale_load_down(se->load.weight) and this se->avg.load_avg will be >> added to tg_x[cpu]->cfs_rq->avg.load_avg when attached to the cfs_rq Yeah, you right, even when I've created 50 second level groups, tg_x->load_avg is ~6800. Could it have something to do with the fact that .se->load.weight = 2 for all these task groups? on a 64bit system? In case we call __update_load_avg(..., se->on_rq * scale_load_down(se->load.weight), ...) we pass a weight argument of 0 for these se's. Does not happen with: - if (shares < MIN_SHARES) - shares = MIN_SHARES; + if (shares < scale_load(MIN_SHARES)) + shares = scale_load(MIN_SHARES); in calc_cfs_shares(). [...]
