On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 04:14:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 04:51:01PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > On 3 October 2014 16:36, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> + * utilization_load_avg is the sum of the average running time of > > >> the > > >> + * sched_entities on the rq. > > >> */ > > > > > > So I think there was some talk about a blocked_utilization thingy, which > > > would track the avg running time of the tasks currently asleep, right? > > > > > > > yes. Do you mean that we should anticipate and rename > > utilization_load_avg into utilization_runnable_avg to make space for a > > utilization_blocked_avg that could be added in future ? > > nah, just trying to put things straight in my brain, including what is > 'missing'.
As Ben pointed out in the scale-invariance thread, we need blocked utilization. I fully agree with that. It doesn't make any sense not to include it. In fact I do have the patch already. If you want to rename utlization_load_avg you should name it utilization_running_avg, not utilization_runnable_avg :) Or even better, something shorter. -- 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/
