From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753884Ab3LNN2M (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Dec 2013 08:28:12 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.220.47]:53956 "EHLO mail-pa0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753641Ab3LNN2K (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Dec 2013 08:28:10 -0500 Message-ID: <52AC5CDF.8050209@linaro.org> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 21:27:59 +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: Peter Zijlstra CC: mingo@redhat.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, fweisbec@gmail.com, 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, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, hanjun.guo@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched: remove cpu_load decay References: <1386061556-28233-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org> <20131213200303.GI2480@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: <20131213200303.GI2480@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> 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 12/14/2013 04:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > I had a quick peek at the actual patches. > > afaict we're now using weighted_cpuload() aka runnable_load_avg as the > ->cpu_load. Whatever happened to also using the blocked_avg? When enabling the sched_avg in load balance, I didn't find any positive testing result for several blocked_avg trying, just few regression. :( And since this patchset is almost clean up only, no blocked_load_avg trying again... > > I totally hate patch 4; it seems like a random hack to make up for the > lack of blocked_avg. Yes, this bias criteria seems a bit arbitrary. :) But, anyway even with blocked_load_avg, we still need to consider to bias to local cpu. like in a scenario, 2 cpus both has nearly zero blocked_load_avg. BTW, Paul, do you has new idea on blocked_load_avg using? -- Thanks Alex