summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/include/linux/sched.h
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorDietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>2015-08-15 00:04:41 +0100
committerIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>2015-09-13 09:52:56 +0200
commite3279a2e6d697e00e74f905851ee7cf532f72b2d (patch)
treeed737d4afb27498454dd5caa1a91f92df582f047 /include/linux/sched.h
parent8cd5601c50603caa195ce86cc465cb04079ed488 (diff)
sched/fair: Make utilization tracking CPU scale-invariant
Besides the existing frequency scale-invariance correction factor, apply CPU scale-invariance correction factor to utilization tracking to compensate for any differences in compute capacity. This could be due to micro-architectural differences (i.e. instructions per seconds) between cpus in HMP systems (e.g. big.LITTLE), and/or differences in the current maximum frequency supported by individual cpus in SMP systems. In the existing implementation utilization isn't comparable between cpus as it is relative to the capacity of each individual CPU. Each segment of the sched_avg.util_sum geometric series is now scaled by the CPU performance factor too so the sched_avg.util_avg of each sched entity will be invariant from the particular CPU of the HMP/SMP system on which the sched entity is scheduled. With this patch, the utilization of a CPU stays relative to the max CPU performance of the fastest CPU in the system. In contrast to utilization (sched_avg.util_sum), load (sched_avg.load_sum) should not be scaled by compute capacity. The utilization metric is based on running time which only makes sense when cpus are _not_ fully utilized (utilization cannot go beyond 100% even if more tasks are added), where load is runnable time which isn't limited by the capacity of the CPU and therefore is a better metric for overloaded scenarios. If we run two nice-0 busy loops on two cpus with different compute capacity their load should be similar since their compute demands are the same. We have to assume that the compute demand of any task running on a fully utilized CPU (no spare cycles = 100% utilization) is high and the same no matter of the compute capacity of its current CPU, hence we shouldn't scale load by CPU capacity. Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/55CE7409.1000700@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'include/linux/sched.h')
-rw-r--r--include/linux/sched.h2
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index c8d923ba429d..bd38b3ee9e83 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1180,7 +1180,7 @@ struct load_weight {
* 1) load_avg factors frequency scaling into the amount of time that a
* sched_entity is runnable on a rq into its weight. For cfs_rq, it is the
* aggregated such weights of all runnable and blocked sched_entities.
- * 2) util_avg factors frequency scaling into the amount of time
+ * 2) util_avg factors frequency and cpu scaling into the amount of time
* that a sched_entity is running on a CPU, in the range [0..SCHED_LOAD_SCALE].
* For cfs_rq, it is the aggregated such times of all runnable and
* blocked sched_entities.