Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] sched: Improve cpu load accounting with nohz

[Byungchul Park]

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 04:56:36PM +0000, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> Another point ... 'active=1' (function header: @active: !0 for NOHZ_FULL
> is a little bit misleading) is also true for when __update_cpu_load() is
> called from update_cpu_load_active(). In this case tickless_load
> wouldn't have to be set at all since pending_updates is 1,
> decay_load_missed() can handle that by bailing in case missed_updates = 0.

Hello Dietmar.

> 
> Couldn't we set tickless_load only in case:
> 
> unsigned long tickless_load = (active && pending_updates > 1) ?
> this_rq->cpu_load[0] : 0;

IMHO, this looks better even though it does not change much.

Thank you,
Byungchul