[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YUNycdzO3jRBTlhM@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 09:36:01 -0700
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
CC: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Valentin Schneider <Valentin.Schneider@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>,
<bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc 0/6] Scheduler BPF
Hello!
I'm sorry, somehow the patchset didn't reach mailing lists and at least
some recepients yesterday (I'm digging into why).
Resending with a fewer people in the cc list, which probably was the reason.
Thanks!
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 09:24:45AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> There is a long history of distro people, system administrators, and
> application owners tuning the CFS settings in /proc/sys, which are now
> in debugfs. Looking at what these settings actually did, it ended up
> boiling down to changing the likelihood of task preemption, or
> disabling it by setting the wakeup_granularity_ns to more than half of
> the latency_ns. The other settings didn't really do much for
> performance.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists