Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] sched: entity load-tracking re-work

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 10:39 +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> I have looked at traces of both runnable time and usage time trying to
> understand why you use runnable time as your load metric and not usage
> time which seems more intuitive. What I see is that runnable time
> depends on the total runqueue load. If you have many tasks on the
> runqueue they will wait longer and therefore have higher individual
> load_avg_contrib than they would if the were scheduled across more CPUs.
> Usage time is also affected by the number of tasks on the runqueue as
> more tasks means less CPU time. However, less usage can also just mean
> that the task does not execute very often. This would make a load
> contribution estimate based on usage time less accurate. Is this your
> reason for choosing runnable time? 

Exactly so, you cannot ever have more than 100% usage, so no matter how
many tasks you stick on a cpu, you'll never get over that 100% and thus
this is not a usable load metric.


--
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/