lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] sched: make update_cpu_load_active care more than one tick
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:02:40AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 06:35:24PM +0900, byungchul.park@lge.com wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I think the idea was that the NO_HZ bits would deal with the other
> cases.

in the case of NO_HZ (including FULL NO_HZ), NO problem. it would be dealt
by update_idle_cpu_load() or update_cpu_load_nohz() in this case.

however, we expect that update_cpu_load_active() is called every tick, but
it is not true. that's why i suggested this. actually it did not happen
a stop tick routine when i found that update_cpu_load_active() was called
with interval which is several ticks, furthermore, more than 10 ticks.
i checked this with debugger.

is there anything i missed?

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-09 09:41    [W:0.124 / U:7.560 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site