Re: [PATCH v3 09/12] Revert "sched: Put rq's sched_avg under CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED"

[Vincent Guittot]

On 11 July 2014 18:13, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@xxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

>
> In this example using rq->avg leads to imbalance whereas unweighted load
> would not. Correct me if I missed anything.

You just miss to take into account how the imbalance is computed

>
> Coming back to the previous example. I'm not convinced that inflation of
> the unweighted load sum when tasks overlap in time is a bad thing. I
> have mentioned this before. The average cpu utilization over the 40ms
> period is 50%. However the true compute capacity demand is 200% for the
> first 15ms of the period, 100% for the next 5ms and 0% for the remaining
> 25ms. The cpu is actually overloaded for 15ms every 40ms. This fact is
> factored into the unweighted load whereas rq->avg would give you the
> same utilization no matter if the tasks are overlapped or not. Hence
> unweighted load would give us an indication that the mix of tasks isn't
> optimal even if the cpu has spare cycles.
>
> If you don't care about overlap and latency, the unweighted sum of task
> running time (that Peter has proposed a number of times) is better
> metric, IMHO. As long the cpu isn't fully utilized.
>
> Morten
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/