From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753371AbbIIHCx (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 9 Sep 2015 03:02:53 -0400
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:58610 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751957AbbIIHCs (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 9 Sep 2015 03:02:48 -0400
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:02:40 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: byungchul.park@lge.com
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: make update_cpu_load_active care more than one tick
Message-ID: <20150909070240.GL3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1439458524-14145-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1439458524-14145-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 06:35:24PM +0900, byungchul.park@lge.com wrote:
> From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
> 
> i found do_timer accounts other than one tick, so i made
> update_cpu_load_active care that.
> 
> is it intended because of its overhead?

I think the idea was that the NO_HZ bits would deal with the other
cases.