Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [Patch v6 1/7] sched/pelt.c: Add support to track thermal pressure | From | Dietmar Eggemann <> | Date | Thu, 9 Jan 2020 13:24:23 +0100 |
| |
On 08/01/2020 15:56, Thara Gopinath wrote: > On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 07:54, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> > wrote: > >> On 12/12/2019 05:11, Thara Gopinath wrote: >> >> minor: in subject: s/sched/pelt.c/sched/pelt >> >> [...] >> >>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/pelt.c b/kernel/sched/pelt.c >>> index a96db50..9aac3b7 100644 >>> --- a/kernel/sched/pelt.c >>> +++ b/kernel/sched/pelt.c >>> @@ -353,6 +353,28 @@ int update_dl_rq_load_avg(u64 now, struct rq *rq, >> int running) >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> +/* >>> + * thermal: >>> + * >>> + * load_sum = \Sum se->avg.load_sum >> >> Why not '\Sum rq->avg.load_sum' ? >> > Hi Dietmar, > > The header for all other update_*_load_avg api use se->avg. and not rq->avg.
True but at least they (rt_rq, dl_rq, irq) also say 'but se->avg.util_sum is not tracked'.
I guess this comment originally came from the '__update_load_avg_blocked_se(), __update_load_avg_se(), __update_load_avg_cfs_rq()' block:
* cfq_rq: * * load_sum = \Sum se_weight(se) * se->avg.load_sum
but for rt_rq, dl_rq, irq and thermal we don't have a relationship like between se and cfs_rq's so that's why this comment confuses me.
|  |