From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754702Ab0JASmN (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:42:13 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:56165 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753391Ab0JASmM (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:42:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:09:23 -0700 From: Greg KH To: tmhikaru@gmail.com Cc: Florian Mickler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Unusually high load average when idle in 2.6.35, 2.6.35.1 and later Message-ID: <20101001180923.GB9353@suse.de> References: <20101001035321.GA2360@roll> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101001035321.GA2360@roll> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:53:21PM -0400, tmhikaru@gmail.com wrote: > Author: Peter Zijlstra > Date: Thu Apr 22 21:50:19 2010 +0200 > > sched: Cure load average vs NO_HZ woes > > Chase reported that due to us decrementing calc_load_task prematurely > (before the next LOAD_FREQ sample), the load average could be scewed > by as much as the number of CPUs in the machine. > > This patch, based on Chase's patch, cures the problem by keeping the > delta of the CPU going into NO_HZ idle separately and folding that in > on the next LOAD_FREQ update. > > This restores the balance and we get strict LOAD_FREQ period samples. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra > Acked-by: Chase Douglas > LKML-Reference: <1271934490.1776.343.camel@laptop> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Care to resend this and cc: Peter, Chase, and Ingo? thanks, greg k-h