From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: refine maximum periods for decay_load
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 16:17:02 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160805081702.GA21369@leoy-linaro> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDHWjVB+2Tqmr2eD7kHjDjd+54PbU4A93oDpvVgHz4jGg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Vincent,
Thanks for review.
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 09:56:46AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Leo,
>
> On 5 August 2016 at 08:34, Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > In current code, decay_load() will consider to set load value to zero
> > after passing 32*64 ms. So this means max_load * (0.5^64) ~= 0.
> >
> > Kernel can support maximum number of processes and threads to 2^29 and
> > set task with highest priority with nice=-20 (weight = 88761). So in
> > worst case, one CPU may have maximum load value is:
> >
> > max_load = 2^29 * 88761 < 2^46
> >
> > In theory after pass 46 periods we can ensure load value will be decayed
> > to zero. So this patch is to change maximum periods from 64 to 48.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index e342159..55cb134 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -2622,7 +2622,7 @@ static __always_inline u64 decay_load(u64 val, u64 n)
> >
> > if (!n)
> > return val;
> > - else if (unlikely(n > LOAD_AVG_PERIOD * 63))
> > + else if (unlikely(n > LOAD_AVG_PERIOD * 47))
>
> In the equation above, you use 46 then you mentioned : "change maximum
> periods from 64 to 48." and finally you use 47.
Sorry introduce confusion. I want to align to 16 so choose maximum
periods to 48, and due to condition is (n > LOAD_AVG_PERIOD * 47) so
it equeals to (n >= LOAD_AVG_PERIOD * 48).
Precisely I think the code should be:
else if (unlikely(n >= LOAD_AVG_PERIOD * 46))
Do you think this is okay?
> > return 0;
> >
> > /* after bounds checking we can collapse to 32-bit */
> > --
> > 1.9.1
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-05 8:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-05 6:34 Leo Yan
2016-08-05 7:56 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-08-05 8:17 ` Leo Yan [this message]
2016-08-05 8:31 ` Vincent Guittot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160805081702.GA21369@leoy-linaro \
--to=leo.yan@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®