On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 10:08:42AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > > That I believe is not a problem. It is a matter of when cfs_rq->load.weight > > changes and when we look at it to contribute to the cfs_rq's load_avg. > > Fortunately, we will not miss any change of cfs_rq->load.weight, always > > contributing to the load_avg the right amount. Put another way, we always > > use the right cfs_rq->load.weight. > > You always call __update_load_avg with every needed load.weight, but if > now - sa->last_update_time < 1024, then it will not do anything with > that weight, and the next actual update may be with a different weight. Oh, yes, I finally understand, :) You are right. That is the matter of 1ms period. Within period boundary, everything will be lost.
Thanks, Yuyang -- 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/
