On 11 July 2014 22:12, Peter Zijlstra [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 07:39:29PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:

quoted

In my mind, arch_scale_cpu_freq was intend to scale the capacity of
the CPU according to the current dvfs operating point.
As it's no more use anywhere now that we have arch_scale_cpu, we could
probably remove it .. and see when it will become used.

I probably should have written comments when I wrote that code, but it
was meant to be used only where, as described above, we limit things.
Ondemand and such, which will temporarily decrease freq, will ramp it up
again at demand, and therefore lowering the capacity will skew things.

You'll put less load on because its run slower, and then you'll run it
slower because there's less load on -> cyclic FAIL.

quoted

quoted

In that same discussion ISTR a suggestion about adding avg_running time,
as opposed to the current avg_runnable. The sum of avg_running should be
much more accurate, and still react correctly to migrations.

I haven't look in details but I agree that avg_running would be much
more accurate than avg_runnable and should probably fit the
requirement. Does it means that we could re-add the avg_running (or
something similar) that has disappeared during the review of load avg
tracking patchset ?

Sure, I think we killed it there because there wasn't an actual use for
it and I'm always in favour of stripping everything to their bare bones,
esp big and complex things.

And then later, add things back once we have need for it.

Ok, i'm going to look how to add it back taking nto account current
Yuyang's rework of load_avg

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