[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240412074316.GF30852@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:43:16 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>,
Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Youssef Esmat <youssefesmat@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 3/6] sched/fair: Fair server interface
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 05:02:41PM +0200, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> On 4/11/24 16:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The 'defer' thing is dubious though, I don't suppose anybody would ever
> > want to actually change that, other than you while poking around at this
> > code, right?
>
> In a setup where all real-time tasks are DL (without fixed-priority tasks (FIFO/RR))
> the defer = 0 makes more sense because the bandwidth is reserved anyways, and the
> DL server would have a relatively low prio (long period).
Tell me more -- how is it better in that case? I would think it wouldn't
matter much.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists