[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100913064153.GB14728@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 08:41:53 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with
nr_running
* Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 14:16 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > Or am I missing your point ?
>
> Yes and no. I'm pondering the parent, but by the same token, the
> vfork child shouldn't be penalized either.
>
> Does your latency go down drastically if you turn START_DEBIT off?
> Seems like it should. Perhaps START_DEBIT should not start a task
> further right than rightmost. I've done that before.
>
> maximum latency: 19221.5 µs
> average latency: 5159.0 µs
> missed timer events: 0
>
> maximum latency: 43901.0 µs
> average latency: 8430.1 µs
> missed timer events: 0
>
> Turning it off here cut latency roughly in half (i've piddled vfork
> though, but not completely). Limiting child placement to no further
> right than rightmost should help quite a bit.
Very interesting observation. Mathieu, mind testing Mike's suggestion
with wakeup-latency.c?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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