On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 03:07:52PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:

quoted

quoted

Also I'm not entirely sure I like the usage, utilization names/metrics.
I would suggest to reverse them. Call the pure running number
'utilization' and this scaled with capacity 'usage' or so.

ok. i can invert 'usage' and 'utilization', which will give

s/get_cpu_utilization/get_cpu_usage/
s/sgs->group_utilization/sgs->group_usage/

The confusion will have new dimensions added when we introduce
scale-invariance too. Then the running number is already scaled by the
current P-state compute capacity. But I don't have any better
suggestions. 

quoted

s/cfs.usage_load_avg/cfs.utilization_load_avg/

I don't like using "load" for unweighted metrics. I associate load with
something that may be weighted by priority like load_avg_contrib, and
utilization with pure cpu utilization as in how many cycles is spend on
a particular task. I called it "usage_util_avg" in my own patches, but
"util_avg" might be better if we agree that utilization == usage.

quoted

s/se->avg.usage_avg_contrib/se->avg.utilization_avg_contrib

util_avg_contrib maybe to keep it shorter.

quoted

s/__update_task_entity_usage/__update_task_entity_utilization
s/__update_entity_usage_avg_contrib/__update_entity_utilization_avg_contrib

Maybe use "util" here as well?

Morten