[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPM31R+x3h0b_r4uFkg_SMnkp0AWA6QRAQuDRducycHnFdG5Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 04:20:55 -0700
From: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
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>,
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>,
Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/7] sched: set initial value of runnable avg for new
forked task
Yes, 1024 was only intended as a starting point. We could also
arbitrarily pick something larger, the key is that we pick
_something_.
If we wanted to be more exacting about it we could just give them a
sched_slice() worth; this would have a few obvious "nice" properties
(pun intended).
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com> wrote:
> On 05/07/2013 05:57 PM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
>> Agree. The tracked load of new tasks is often very unstable during first
>> couple of ms on loaded systems. I'm not sure if 1024 is the right
>> initial value. It may need to be larger.
>
> Maybe Peter can give a better value according to the experience on
> scheduler. :)
>
> --
> 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