On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 01:50:38PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > > It's both a unit and a SCALE/SHIFT problem, SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT and > > SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT are defined separately so we must be sure to > > scale the value in the right range. In the case of cpu_usage which > > returns sa->util_avg , it's the capacity range not the load range. > > Still don't understand why it's a unit problem. IMHO LOAD/UTIL and > CAPACITY have no unit.
To be more accurate, probably, LOAD can be thought of as having unit, but UTIL has no unit. Anyway, those are my definitions: 1) unit, only for LOAD, and SCHED_LOAD_X is the unit (but SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION make it also some 2, see below) 2) range, aka, resolution or fix-point percentage (as Ben said) 3) timing ratio, LOAD_AVG_MAX etc, unralated with SCHED_LOAD_X > >> I always thought that scale_load_down() takes care of that. > > > > AFAIU, scale_load_down is a way to increase the resolution of the > > load not to move from load to capacity > > I tried to figure out why we have this issue when comparing UTIL w/ > CAPACITY and not LOAD w/ CAPACITY: > > Both are initialized like that: > > sa->load_avg = scale_load_down(se->load.weight); > sa->load_sum = sa->load_avg * LOAD_AVG_MAX; > sa->util_avg = scale_load_down(SCHED_LOAD_SCALE); > sa->util_sum = LOAD_AVG_MAX; > > and we use 'se->on_rq * scale_load_down(se->load.weight)' as 'unsigned > long weight' argument to call __update_load_avg() making sure the > scaling differences between LOAD and CAPACITY are respected while > updating sa->load_sum (and sa->load_avg). Yes, because we used SCHED_LOAD_X as both unit and range for LOAD. > OTAH, we don't apply a scale_load_down for sa->util_[sum/avg] only a '<< > SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT) / LOAD_AVG_MAX' on sa->util_avg. > So changing '<< SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT' to '* > scale_load_down(SCHED_LOAD_SCALE)' would be the logical thing to do. Actually, for UTIL, we only need range, so don't conflate with LOAD, what about we get all these clarified by redefining SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION as the resolution/range generic macro for LOAD, UTIL, and CAPACITY: #define SCHED_RESOLUTION_SHIFT 10 #define SCHED_RESOLUTION_SCALE (1L << SCHED_RESOLUTION_SHIFT) #if 0 /* BITS_PER_LONG > 32 -- currently broken: it increases power usage under light load */ # define scale_load(w) ((w) << SCHED_RESOLUTION_SHIFT) # define scale_load_down(w) ((w) >> SCHED_RESOLUTION_SHIFT) # define SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT (10 + SCHED_RESOLUTION_SHIFT) #else # define scale_load(w) (w) # define scale_load_down(w) (w) # define SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT (10) #endif #define SCHED_LOAD_SCALE (1L << SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT) For UTIL, e.g., it will be initiated as: sa->util_avg = SCHED_RESOLUTION_SCALE; And for capacity, we just use SCHED_RESOLUTION_SHIFT (so SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT is not needed). 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/
