Am 23.08.2012 16:14, schrieb [email protected]:
> From: Paul Turner <[email protected]>
>
> Now that our measurement intervals are small (~1ms) we can amortize the
> posting
> of update_shares() to be about each period overflow. This is a large cost
> saving for frequently switching tasks.
[snip]
> @@ -1181,6 +1181,7 @@ static void update_cfs_rq_blocked_load(struct cfs_rq
> *cfs_rq, int force_update)
> }
>
> __update_cfs_rq_tg_load_contrib(cfs_rq, force_update);
> + update_cfs_shares(cfs_rq);
> }
Here a call to update_cfs_shares() gets added. Doesn't that make the call to
update_cfs_shares() in __update_blocked_averages_cpu() superfluous?
Function pasted here for reference:
static void __update_blocked_averages_cpu(struct task_group *tg, int cpu)
{
struct sched_entity *se = tg->se[cpu];
struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = tg->cfs_rq[cpu];
/* throttled entities do not contribute to load */
if (throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq))
return;
update_cfs_rq_blocked_load(cfs_rq, 1);
if (se) {
update_entity_load_avg(se, 1);
/*
* We can pivot on the runnable average decaying to zero for
* list removal since the parent average will always be >=
* child.
*/
if (se->avg.runnable_avg_sum)
update_cfs_shares(cfs_rq);
else
list_del_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
} else {
struct rq *rq = rq_of(cfs_rq);
update_rq_runnable_avg(rq, rq->nr_running);
}
}
Regards
Jan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
