[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51877970.8010303@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 17:35:44 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
CC: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] sched: consider runnable load average in effective_load
On 05/06/2013 05:06 PM, Paul Turner wrote:
> I don't think this is a good idea:
>
> The problem with not using the instantaneous weight here is that you
> potentially penalize the latency of interactive tasks (similarly,
> potentially important background threads -- e.g. garbage collection).
>
> Counter-intuitively we actually want such tasks on the least loaded
> cpus to minimize their latency. If the load they contribute ever
> becomes more substantial we trust that periodic balance will start
> taking notice of them.
Sounds reasonable. Many thanks for your input, Paul!
So, will use the seconds try. :)
>
> [ This is similar to why we have to use the instantaneous weight in
> calc_cfs_shares. ]
>
--
Thanks
Alex
--
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