On 01/10/2013 07:28 PM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 08:37:40AM +0000, Alex Shi wrote:
>> effective_load calculates the load change as seen from the
>> root_task_group. It needs to multiple cfs_rq's tg_runnable_contrib
>> when we turn to runnable load average balance.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex....@intel.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 11 ++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index cab62aa..247d6a8 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -2982,7 +2982,8 @@ static void task_waking_fair(struct task_struct *p)
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
>> /*
>> - * effective_load() calculates the load change as seen from the
>> root_task_group
>> + * effective_load() calculates the runnable load average change as seen from
>> + * the root_task_group
>> *
>> * Adding load to a group doesn't make a group heavier, but can cause
>> movement
>> * of group shares between cpus. Assuming the shares were perfectly aligned
>> one
>> @@ -3030,13 +3031,17 @@ static void task_waking_fair(struct task_struct *p)
>> * Therefore the effective change in loads on CPU 0 would be 5/56 (3/8 -
>> 2/7)
>> * times the weight of the group. The effect on CPU 1 would be -4/56 (4/8 -
>> * 4/7) times the weight of the group.
>> + *
>> + * After get effective_load of the load moving, will multiple the cpu own
>> + * cfs_rq's runnable contrib of root_task_group.
>> */
>> static long effective_load(struct task_group *tg, int cpu, long wl, long wg)
>> {
>> struct sched_entity *se = tg->se[cpu];
>>
>> if (!tg->parent) /* the trivial, non-cgroup case */
>> - return wl;
>> + return wl * tg->cfs_rq[cpu]->tg_runnable_contrib
>> + >> NICE_0_SHIFT;
>
> Why do we need to scale the load of the task (wl) by runnable_contrib
> when the task is in the root task group? Wouldn't the load change still
> just be wl?
>
Here, wl is the load weight, runnable_contrib engaged the runnable time.
>>
>> for_each_sched_entity(se) {
>> long w, W;
>> @@ -3084,7 +3089,7 @@ static long effective_load(struct task_group *tg, int
>> cpu, long wl, long wg)
>> wg = 0;
>> }
>>
>> - return wl;
>> + return wl * tg->cfs_rq[cpu]->tg_runnable_contrib >> NICE_0_SHIFT;
>
> I believe that effective_load() is only used in wake_affine() to compare
> load scenarios of the same task group. Since the task group is the same
> the effective load is scaled by the same factor and should not make any
> difference?
>
> Also, in wake_affine() the result of effective_load() is added with
> target_load() which is load.weight of the cpu and not a tracked load
> based on runnable_avg_*/contrib?
>
> Finally, you have not scaled the result of effective_load() in the
> function used when FAIR_GROUP_SCHED is disabled. Should that be scaled
> too?
it should be, thanks reminder.
the wake up is not good for burst wakeup benchmark. I am thinking to
rewrite this part.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
