[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080907140746.3de99747@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 14:07:46 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...x.de,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: update on hrtimer based select/poll and range-hrtimers
On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:46:39 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > "0.1% of the time" for not-nice, not realtime tasks
> > "0.5% of the time" for nice, not realtime tasks
> > with a cap of 100msec for both.
> >
> > I would like to request feedback on this approach; I think this is
> > better than the "hardcoded steps" as before, but maybe someone can
> > come up with an ever better idea....
>
> logarithms pop to mind (again :-)
and it still doesn't strike me as "oh yeah"
how would you see this work? Can you give a numeric example?
>
> > static unsigned long __estimate_accuracy(struct timespec *tv)
> > {
> > unsigned long slack;
> > int divfactor = 1000;
> >
> > if (task_nice(current))
>
> This triggers for both -nice and +nice tasks, it might be worth
> differentiating between those.
good spotting; will fix.
> >
> > if (current->policy == SCHED_FIFO ||
> > current->policy == SCHED_RR)
> > return 0;
>
> rt_task(current) ?
hmm that's not exactly equivalent.. I can see either but still.
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists