[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YVwdrh5pg0zSv2/b@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 11:41:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Scale wakeup granularity relative to
nr_running
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 04:04:57PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 04:15:27PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> The reason I used SCHED_TUNABLESCALING_NONE for the changelog is that
> the exact values depend on the number of CPUs so values are not even
> the same across the range of machines I'm using. sysctl_sched_latency,
> sysctl_sched_min_granularity sysctl_sched_wakeup_granularity are all
> scaled but the ratios remain constant.
It might make sense to reconsider the whole scaling thing FWIW. It used
to be that desktop systems had 'small' number of CPUs (<=8) and servers
had more.
But today it's not uncommon to have 32-64 CPUs in a desktop system. And
even LOG scaling gets us into stupid numbers for the latencies.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists