Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: fix the nonsense shares when load of cfs_rq is too, small

[çè]

On 2020/3/5 äå3:53, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 at 02:14, çè <yun.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> index fcc968669aea..6d7a9d72d742 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> @@ -3179,9 +3179,9 @@ static long calc_group_shares(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>>>         long tg_weight, tg_shares, load, shares;
>>>         struct task_group *tg = cfs_rq->tg;
>>>
>>> -       tg_shares = READ_ONCE(tg->shares);
>>> +       tg_shares = scale_load_down(READ_ONCE(tg->shares));
>>>
>>> -       load = max(scale_load_down(cfs_rq->load.weight), cfs_rq->avg.load_avg);
>>> +       load = max(cfs_rq->load.weight, scale_load(cfs_rq->avg.load_avg));
>>>
>>>         tg_weight = atomic_long_read(&tg->load_avg);
>>
>> Get the point, but IMHO fix scale_load_down() sounds better, to
>> cover all the similar cases, let's first try that way see if it's
>> working :-)
> 
> The problem with this solution is that the avg.load_avg of gse or
> cfs_rq might stay to 0 because it uses
> scale_load_down(se/cfs_rq->load.weight)

Will cfs_rq->load.weight be zero too without scale down?

If cfs_rq->load.weight got at least something, the load will not be
zero after pick the max, correct?

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
>>
>> Regards,
>> Michael Wang
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>