From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: morten.rasmussen@arm.com (Morten Rasmussen) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 17:05:55 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v6 3/6] sched: add utilization_avg_contrib In-Reply-To: <20141003151451.GJ10583@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1411488485-10025-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1411488485-10025-4-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20141003143634.GL2849@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20141003151451.GJ10583@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> Message-ID: <20141003160555.GH28662@e103034-lin> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 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.