RE: [rfc patch] Re: sched: incorrect argument used in task_hot()

["Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>]

Ingo Molnar wrote on Friday, November 17, 2006 11:21 AM
> * Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> > One way to improve granularity, and eliminate the possibility of 
> > p->last_run being > rq->timestamp_tast_tick, and thereby short 
> > circuiting the evaluation of cache_hot_time, is to cache the last 
> > return of sched_clock() at both tick and sched times, and use that 
> > value as our reference instead of the absolute time of the tick.  It 
> > won't totally eliminate skew, but it moves the reference point closer 
> > to the current time on the remote cpu.
> > 
> > Looking for a good place to do this, I chose update_cpu_clock().
> 
> looks good to me - thus we will update the timestamp not only in the 
> timer tick, but also upon every context-switch (when we acquire 
> sched_clock() value anyway). Lets try this in -mm?

Certainly gets my vote.  For my particular workload environment, there
are enough schedule activity on the remote CPU and in theory it should
make time calculation a lot better than what it is now.  I will run a
couple of experiment to verify.

Acked-by: Ken Chen <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>