Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] sched: consider runnable load average in effective_load

[Alex Shi]

On 05/06/2013 05:06 PM, Paul Turner wrote:
> I don't think this is a good idea:
> 
> The problem with not using the instantaneous weight here is that you
> potentially penalize the latency of interactive tasks (similarly,
> potentially important background threads -- e.g. garbage collection).
> 
> Counter-intuitively we actually want such tasks on the least loaded
> cpus to minimize their latency.  If the load they contribute ever
> becomes more substantial we trust that periodic balance will start
> taking notice of them.

Sounds reasonable. Many thanks for your input, Paul!

So, will use the seconds try. :)
> 
> [ This is similar to why we have to use the instantaneous weight in
> calc_cfs_shares. ]
> 


-- 
Thanks
    Alex
--
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/