[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1236606671.5980.1.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:51:11 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
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 14:27 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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 :-)
5977 root 20 0 3672 440 352 R 100 0.0 0:28.53 2 pipetest
5978 root 20 0 3668 180 96 S 29 0.0 0:08.27 0 pipetest
Yup, works for me. Ship it :)
-Mike
--
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