On 11 September 2014 13:17, Peter Zijlstra [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 01:06:52PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
quoted
index 5c2c885..7dfd584 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1073,10 +1073,10 @@ struct sched_avg {
* above by 1024/(1-y). Thus we only need a u32 to store them for all
* choices of y < 1-2^(-32)*1024.
*/
- u32 runnable_avg_sum, runnable_avg_period;
+ u32 runnable_avg_sum, runnable_avg_period, running_avg_sum;
Seeing how we use runnable_avg_period for both runnable and running,
does it make sense to remove the runnable part of it from the name?
It's right
Also, 4 byte hole here, not sure we've got anything useful to stuff in
it though.
I can move all u32 declaration at the end of the struct unless it has
been put before any u64 for good reason
quoted
u64 last_runnable_update;
s64 decay_count;
- unsigned long load_avg_contrib;
+ unsigned long load_avg_contrib, usage_avg_contrib;
};
Man, I should go look at Yuyang's rewrite of this all again. I just
tried to figure out the decay stuff and my head hurts ;-)