On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Lei Wen <adrian.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Paul Turner <p...@google.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:45:12PM +0800, Lei Wen wrote: >>>> > Not quite right; I think you need busiest->cfs.h_nr_running. >>>> > cfs.nr_running is the number of entries running in this 'group'. If >>>> > you've got nested groups like: >>>> > >>>> > 'root' >>>> > \ >>>> > 'A' >>>> > / \ >>>> > t1 t2 >>>> > >>>> > root.nr_running := 1 'A', even though you've got multiple running tasks. >>>> > >>>> >>>> You're absolutely right for this. :) >>>> I miss it for not considering the group case... >>>> >>>> Then do you think it is necessary to do below change in load_balance() >>>> code? >>>> - if (busiest->nr_running > 1) { >>>> + if (busiest->cfs.h_nr_running > 1) { >>>> >>> >>> Yes I think that would be fine. >> >> If we pivot to use h_nr_running we should probably also update >> call-sites such as cpu_load_avg_per_task() for consistency. > > I didn't find cpu_load_avg_per_task in the latest linux git... > Is it a new patch pending while not being submitted?
Transposition typo: cpu_avg_load_per_task() More generally: Most things that examine ->nr_running in the fair load-balance path. > > Thanks, > Lei -- 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/