From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751079Ab3LKBd5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:33:57 -0500 Received: from mail-pd0-f171.google.com ([209.85.192.171]:46678 "EHLO mail-pd0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750776Ab3LKBd4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:33:56 -0500 Message-ID: <52A7C0F4.1000209@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:33:40 +0800 From: Alex Shi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frederic Weisbecker CC: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, tony.luck@intel.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, pjt@google.com, fengguang.wu@intel.com, james.hogan@imgtec.com, jason.low2@hp.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, hanjun.guo@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] nohz_full: update cpu load fix in nohz_full References: <1386074112-30754-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org> <1386074112-30754-4-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org> <20131210140217.GA10633@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20131210140217.GA10633@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/10/2013 10:02 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: >> > * We were idle, this means load 0, the current load might be >> > * !0 due to remote wakeups and the sort. >> > + * or we may has only one task and in NO_HZ_FULL, then still use >> > + * normal cpu load. >> > */ >> > - __update_cpu_load(this_rq, 0, pending_updates); >> > + if (this_rq->cfs.h_nr_running) { >> > + unsigned load = get_rq_runnable_load(this_rq); >> > + __update_cpu_load(this_rq, load, pending_updates); >> > + } else >> > + __update_cpu_load(this_rq, 0, pending_updates); > But decay_load_missed() doesnt handle non 0 loads, right? It probably make more sense > to first fix __update_cpu_load() to make it handle this kind of thing before fixing the caller. > > Now you had patches that remove the cpu_load secondary idx I think? You should move this patc Thanks for response! Yes, after get your review, I plan to merge this patch with cpu_load decay removing, if that patchset possible get to upstream. :) -- Thanks Alex