Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Li Yu <[email protected]> wrote:
static void distribute_fair_add(struct rq *rq, s64 delta)
{
struct task_struct *curr = rq->curr;
s64 delta_fair = 0;
if (!(sysctl_sched_load_smoothing & 32))
return;
if (rq->nr_running) {
delta_fair = div64_s(delta, rq->nr_running);
/*
* The currently running task's next wait_runtime value does
* not depend on the fair_clock, so fix it up explicitly:
*/
add_wait_runtime(rq, curr, -delta_fair);
rq->fair_clock -= delta_fair;
}
}
See this line:
delta_fair = div64_s(delta, rq->nr_running);
Ingo, should we be replace "rq->nr_running" with "rq->raw_load_weight"
here?
that would break the code. The handling of sleep periods is basically
heuristics and using nr_running here appears to be 'good enough' in
practice.
Thanks, I am wrong at seeing the delta variable is represented by
virtual time unit. if the code does as I said, the delta_fair may be too
small to meanless.
Also, I have want to know what's real meaning of
add_wait_runtime(rq, curr, delta_mine - delta_exec);
in update_curr(), IMHO, it should be
add_wait_runtime(rq, curr, delta_mine - delta_fair);
Is this just another heuristics? or my opinion is wrong again? :-)
Good luck.
- Li Yu
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
