On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 11:26:06PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > On 05/06/2013 06:22 PM, Paul Turner wrote: > >>> >> This is missing a scale_load() right? Further: Why not put this in > >>> >> __sched_fork? > >> > > >> > scale_load is not working now. Anyway I can add this. > > I believe someone tracked down a plausible cause for this: > > A governor was examining the values and making a mess with the scaled > > ones. I'm sorry, I don't have the post off hand. > > > > You actually likely ideally want this _on_ for these patches; the > > available resolution with SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT=10 disappears really > > quickly and scaling by runnable_avg only further accelerates that. > > Sorry for can not follow you. Do you mean the scaling by runnable_avg is > better than scale_load? > > In fact, after think twice of scale_load, guess better to figure out a > good usage for it before enabling blindly.
He's saying its way too easy to run out of fractional bits with the current setup; adding the 10 extra fractional bits provided by SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT is advantagous and we should re-enable that. -- 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/
