[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190521134730.GA12346@blackbody.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 15:47:30 +0200
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] introduce cpu.headroom knob to cpu controller
Hello Song.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 07:43:35PM +0000, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:
> The load level above is measured as requests-per-second.
>
> When there is no side workload, the system has about 45% busy CPU with
> load level of 1.0; and about 75% busy CPU at load level of 1.5.
>
> The saturation starts before the system hitting 100% utilization. This is
> true for many different resources: ALUs in SMT systems, cache lines,
> memory bandwidths, etc.
I have read through the thread continuation and it appears to me there
is some misunderstanding on the latency metric (scheduler latency <=
your latency <= request wall time?).
Could you please describe how is the latency that you report defined and
measured?
Thanks,
Michal
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists