[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <38cca2d87aaebadb502de76be87de9982425042c.camel@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:56:37 +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 Sat, 2023-03-11 at 06:53 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> massive_intr vs desktop CPU distribution improved as expected, but
> (to me) oddly, the amount of desktop beating up itself did not.
Hmm, maybe expected when fancy deadline math tries to wedge a very wide
GUI into a not so wide and pretty well saturated CPU.
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists