[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtA=d6pnczmU8LFpV=d-9-KArO0qfQuvzod5xYo1pKjK5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:52:55 +0200
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/23] sched,ion: Convert to sched_set_normal()
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 17:39, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 05:09:15PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > It's not unbounded, like a true idle-time scheduler would be, but it can
> > > still be pretty horrible. nice19 has some of that too of course, but
> > > idle has it worse, esp. also because it begs others to preempt it.
> >
> > Yeah... you have to pay the benefit of letting other tasks to preempt
> > faster. But both sched_idle and nice19 have the same weight
>
> #define WEIGHT_IDLEPRIO 3
>
> /* 15 */ 36, 29, 23, 18, 15,
>
> 15 != 3
Good point
Don't know why I thought they had same weight
>
> Also, like said elsewhere, idle is much more eager to let itself be
> preempted.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists