On 11 September 2014 13:17, Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 01:06:52PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
index 5c2c885..7dfd584 100644 --- a/include/linux/sched.h +++ b/include/linux/sched.h @@ -1073,10 +1073,10 @@ struct sched_avg { * above by 1024/(1-y). Thus we only need a u32 to store them for all * choices of y < 1-2^(-32)*1024. */
u32 runnable_avg_sum, runnable_avg_period;
u32 runnable_avg_sum, runnable_avg_period, running_avg_sum;Seeing how we use runnable_avg_period for both runnable and running, does it make sense to remove the runnable part of it from the name?
It's right
Also, 4 byte hole here, not sure we've got anything useful to stuff in it though.
I can move all u32 declaration at the end of the struct unless it has been put before any u64 for good reason
u64 last_runnable_update; s64 decay_count;
unsigned long load_avg_contrib;
unsigned long load_avg_contrib, usage_avg_contrib;};
Man, I should go look at Yuyang's rewrite of this all again. I just tried to figure out the decay stuff and my head hurts ;-)