Re: [patch] Re: scheduler oddity [bug?]

[Mike Galbraith]

On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 12:04 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> OK, talked a bit with Ingo, the reason you're doing is that avg_overlap
> can easily grow stale.. I can see that happen indeed.
> 
> So the 'perfect' thing would be a task-runtime decay, barring that the
> preemption thing seems a sane enough hart-beat of a task.
> 
> How does the below look to you?

Other than the fact that the test for sync reject is currently
avg_overlap > sysctl_sched_migration_cost, looks fine to me.  Having it
capped at the boundary is probably the better way to go.

	-Mike

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/