[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151118090308.26917747@yairi>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:03:08 -0800
From: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched: introduce synchronized idle injection
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:21:27 +0100 (CET)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Okay. But it does mean that the defeault idle period is 5 ticks
> > > (50ms @ HZ=100) and not 5 ms
> > correct. my reason is to scale with various HZ values.
>
> So for smaller HZ values we get longer disruption. That's well thought
> out scaling.
well it might be too long for embedded systems who uses 100HZ. Is there
a better way to scale in sub tick level?
My original thought was for smaller HZ value, I assume they care less
about latency, so the idle injection period is proportional to what
they set for HZ.
--
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