[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a3a99571f589fc19152b0ad21bbe7cf70b13ede1.camel@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2023 17:24:21 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
qyousef@...alina.io, chris.hyser@...cle.com,
patrick.bellasi@...bug.net, pjt@...gle.com, pavel@....cz,
qperret@...gle.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, joshdon@...gle.com,
timj@....org, kprateek.nayak@....com, yu.c.chen@...el.com,
youssefesmat@...omium.org, joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] sched/fair: Implement an EEVDF like policy
On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 16:29 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So if I add TICK_NSEC based sleeper bonus (/2 for gentle), then starve
> works -- this is the absolutely minimal amount required. It sucks a bit
> it's HZ dependent, but alas.
>
> Also, the whole sleeper bonus gets us back into needing to track the old
> vruntime and the overflow crap for super long sleeps and all that fugly
> :/ I was so hoping we could delete that code.
>
> Oh well.
Yeah, it's a worthy target.
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists