On 12/10/2013 10:02 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> > * We were idle, this means load 0, the current load might be
>> > * !0 due to remote wakeups and the sort.
>> > + * or we may has only one task and in NO_HZ_FULL, then still use
>> > + * normal cpu load.
>> > */
>> > - __update_cpu_load(this_rq, 0, pending_updates);
>> > + if (this_rq->cfs.h_nr_running) {
>> > + unsigned load = get_rq_runnable_load(this_rq);
>> > + __update_cpu_load(this_rq, load, pending_updates);
>> > + } else
>> > + __update_cpu_load(this_rq, 0, pending_updates);
> But decay_load_missed() doesnt handle non 0 loads, right? It probably make
> more sense
> to first fix __update_cpu_load() to make it handle this kind of thing before
> fixing the caller.
>
> Now you had patches that remove the cpu_load secondary idx I think? You
> should move this patc
Thanks for response!
Yes, after get your review, I plan to merge this patch with cpu_load
decay removing, if that patchset possible get to upstream. :)
--
Thanks
Alex
--
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/
