[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1236605267.8389.490.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:27:47 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Balazs Scheidler <bazsi@...abit.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: [patch] Re: scheduler oddity [bug?]
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 14:16 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 12:04 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > OK, talked a bit with Ingo, the reason you're doing is that avg_overlap
> > can easily grow stale.. I can see that happen indeed.
> >
> > So the 'perfect' thing would be a task-runtime decay, barring that the
> > preemption thing seems a sane enough hart-beat of a task.
> >
> > How does the below look to you?
>
> Other than the fact that the test for sync reject is currently
> avg_overlap > sysctl_sched_migration_cost, looks fine to me. Having it
> capped at the boundary is probably the better way to go.
Ah, yes, and looking at update_avg() we'll also discard the lower 3
bits, so we'll never actually reach.
So I guess it should read something like:
update_avg(&prev->se.avg_overlap, 2*sysctl_sched_migration_cost);
or somesuch.
Does it actually solve the reported problem? I've only thought about the
issue so far :-)
--
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