On 06/07/2013 03:29 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> Since the 'u64 runnable_load_avg, blocked_load_avg' in cfs_rq struct are
> smaller than 'unsigned long' cfs_rq->load.weight. We don't need u64
> vaiables to describe them. unsigned long is more efficient and convenience.
>
update with a a bit clean up in
On 06/17/2013 05:49 PM, Paul Turner wrote:
>>> >> Hi Alex,
>>> >>
>>> >> I just want to point out that we can't have more than 48388 tasks with
>>> >> highest priority on a runqueue with an unsigned long on a 32 bits
>>> >> system. I don't know if we can reach such kind of limit on a 32bits
>>>
On 06/17/2013 05:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> > So, usually the limited task number in Linux is often far lower this
>> > number: $ulimit -u.
>> >
>> > Anyway, at least, the runnable_load_avg is smaller then load.weight. if
>> > load.weight can use long type, runablle_load_avg is no reason
On 8 June 2013 04:18, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 06/07/2013 05:07 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 7 June 2013 09:29, Alex Shi wrote:
>>> > Since the 'u64 runnable_load_avg, blocked_load_avg' in cfs_rq struct are
>>> > smaller than 'unsigned long' cfs_rq->load.weight. We don't need u64
>>> > vaiables
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 06/07/2013 05:07 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 7 June 2013 09:29, Alex Shi wrote:
>>> > Since the 'u64 runnable_load_avg, blocked_load_avg' in cfs_rq struct are
>>> > smaller than 'unsigned long' cfs_rq->load.weight. We don't need u64
>>> >
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
On 06/07/2013 05:07 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 7 June 2013 09:29, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
Since the 'u64 runnable_load_avg, blocked_load_avg' in cfs_rq struct are
smaller than 'unsigned long' cfs_rq-load.weight.
On 8 June 2013 04:18, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
On 06/07/2013 05:07 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 7 June 2013 09:29, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
Since the 'u64 runnable_load_avg, blocked_load_avg' in cfs_rq struct are
smaller than 'unsigned long' cfs_rq-load.weight. We don't
On 06/17/2013 05:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
So, usually the limited task number in Linux is often far lower this
number: $ulimit -u.
Anyway, at least, the runnable_load_avg is smaller then load.weight. if
load.weight can use long type, runablle_load_avg is no reason can't.
Alex,
On 06/17/2013 05:49 PM, Paul Turner wrote:
Hi Alex,
I just want to point out that we can't have more than 48388 tasks with
highest priority on a runqueue with an unsigned long on a 32 bits
system. I don't know if we can reach such kind of limit on a 32bits
machine ? For sure, not on
On 06/07/2013 03:29 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
Since the 'u64 runnable_load_avg, blocked_load_avg' in cfs_rq struct are
smaller than 'unsigned long' cfs_rq-load.weight. We don't need u64
vaiables to describe them. unsigned long is more efficient and convenience.
update with a a bit clean up in
On 06/07/2013 05:07 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 7 June 2013 09:29, Alex Shi wrote:
>> > Since the 'u64 runnable_load_avg, blocked_load_avg' in cfs_rq struct are
>> > smaller than 'unsigned long' cfs_rq->load.weight. We don't need u64
>> > vaiables to describe them. unsigned long is more
On 7 June 2013 09:29, Alex Shi wrote:
> Since the 'u64 runnable_load_avg, blocked_load_avg' in cfs_rq struct are
> smaller than 'unsigned long' cfs_rq->load.weight. We don't need u64
> vaiables to describe them. unsigned long is more efficient and convenience.
>
Hi Alex,
I just want to point
Since the 'u64 runnable_load_avg, blocked_load_avg' in cfs_rq struct are
smaller than 'unsigned long' cfs_rq->load.weight. We don't need u64
vaiables to describe them. unsigned long is more efficient and convenience.
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
---
kernel/sched/debug.c | 4 ++--
On 06/07/2013 05:07 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 7 June 2013 09:29, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
Since the 'u64 runnable_load_avg, blocked_load_avg' in cfs_rq struct are
smaller than 'unsigned long' cfs_rq-load.weight. We don't need u64
vaiables to describe them. unsigned long is
Since the 'u64 runnable_load_avg, blocked_load_avg' in cfs_rq struct are
smaller than 'unsigned long' cfs_rq-load.weight. We don't need u64
vaiables to describe them. unsigned long is more efficient and convenience.
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi alex@intel.com
---
kernel/sched/debug.c | 4 ++--
On 7 June 2013 09:29, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
Since the 'u64 runnable_load_avg, blocked_load_avg' in cfs_rq struct are
smaller than 'unsigned long' cfs_rq-load.weight. We don't need u64
vaiables to describe them. unsigned long is more efficient and convenience.
Hi Alex,
I just
16 matches
Mail list logo
