[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m2k40ec3ea41004011332t80436b03q69ff8cad735037a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:32:15 -0400
From: Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@...onical.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION 2.6.30][PATCH 1/1] sched: defer idle accounting till
after load update period
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> Also we need to think about a more clever way than just accounting the
> number of running and uninterruptible tasks. What we really want is to
> use the numbers which the scheduler has handy, i.e how many tasks did
> we run since we did the last loadavg calculation. It was always
> possible (even before the big loadavg changes) to create a task which
> consumes 50% of a CPU and never shows up in the loadavg calculations
> at all.
I'm not sure I follow how knowing how many tasks have been run since
the last LOAD_FREQ expiration will help, or is that just an example of
the kind of data the scheduler has available that may be useful?
-- Chase
--
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