[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1337677564.5446.11.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:06:04 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: readd FAIR_SLEEPERS feature
On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 09:11 +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>
> On 05/21/2012 05:45 PM, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> [...]
> > --- a/kernel/sched/features.h
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/features.h
> > @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_FAIR_SLEEPERS
> > +/*
> > + * Disregards a certain amount of sleep time (sched_latency_ns) and
> > + * considers the task to be running during that period. This gives it
> > + * a service deficit on wakeup, allowing it to run sooner.
> > + */
> > +SCHED_FEAT(FAIR_SLEEPERS, false)
> > +#endif
> > +
> > /*
> > * Only give sleepers 50% of their service deficit. This allows
> > * them to run sooner, but does not allow tons of sleepers to
>
> This would be right for s390, but a change to every other architecture.
> As far as I know s390 had custom patches in any distribution supported
> on s390 to set the default to false (like in your patch), but the
> upstream default for every other architecture was true.
>
> I think the patch could look like this to make all happy:
> ...
> +#ifndef CONFIG_S390
> + SCHED_FEAT(FAIR_SLEEPERS, true)
> +#else
> +SCHED_FEAT(FAIR_SLEEPERS, false)
> ...
Um, yeah, default off is a non-starter.. until someone comes up with a
less annoying preemption model that is.
-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