[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130508111516.GA6803@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 13:15:16 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, 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>,
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>,
Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/7] sched: set initial value of runnable avg for new
forked task
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 11:24:52AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> It will give new forked task 1 ms extra running time. That will bring
> incorrect info if the new forked goes to sleep a while.
> But this info should benefit to some benchmarks like aim7,
> pthread_cond_broadcast. So I am convinced. :)
>
> What's your opinion of this, Peter?
We're going to get it wrong anyhow (lack of crystal ball instruction);
overestimating the load seems like the best deal wrt latency for new tasks.
The only other option we could try (not sure its even worth trying) would be
half load.
--
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