Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | From | byungchul.park@lge ... | Subject | [RFC] sched: make update_cpu_load_active care more than one tick | Date | Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:35:24 +0900 |
| |
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
i found do_timer accounts other than one tick, so i made update_cpu_load_active care that.
is it intended because of its overhead?
Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> --- kernel/sched/fair.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c index ffa70dc..cd3d98f 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c @@ -4506,12 +4506,15 @@ void update_cpu_load_nohz(void) */ void update_cpu_load_active(struct rq *this_rq) { + unsigned long curr_jiffies = READ_ONCE(jiffies); + unsigned long pending_updates; unsigned long load = this_rq->cfs.runnable_load_avg; /* * See the mess around update_idle_cpu_load() / update_cpu_load_nohz(). */ - this_rq->last_load_update_tick = jiffies; - __update_cpu_load(this_rq, load, 1); + pending_updates = curr_jiffies - this_rq->last_load_update_tick; + this_rq->last_load_update_tick = curr_jiffies; + __update_cpu_load(this_rq, load, pending_updates); } /* Used instead of source_load when we know the type == 0 */ -- 1.7.9.5
|  |