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 ;-)