On 07-Mar 13:24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 11:31:49AM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > It appears to me this isn't a stable situation and completely relies on
> > > the !nr_running case to recalibrate. If we ensure that doesn't happen
> > > for a significant while the sum can run-away, right?
> > By away you mean go over 1024 or overflow the unsigned int storage?
> the later, I think you can make it arbitrarily large. Have a busy task
> on CPU0, this ensure !nr_running never happens.
> Start a busy task on CPU1, wait for it to hit u=1, then migrate it to
At this point util_est(CPU0) = 2048, which is:
+1024 for the busy running task
assuming it has been enqueued with the utilization since the beginning
+1024 for the newly migrated task from CPU1
which is enqueued with the value he reached at dequeued time
> then wait for it to hit u=.5 then kill it,
... but when we kill it, the task is dequeued, and thus we remove
Maybe that's the tricky bit: we remove the value we enqueued, _not_
the current util_avg. Notice we use _task_util_est(p)... with the
> this effectively adds
> .5 to the enqueued value, repeat indefinitely.
Thus this should not happen.
Basically, the RQ's util_est is the sum of the RUNNABLE tasks's
util_est at their enqueue time... which has been update at their last
dequeue time, hence the usage of name "dequeued" for both tasks and
Does it make sense now?