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

[Paul Turner]

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Alex Shi <alex.shi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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. :)

Sorry -- not sure what you mean here.  I'm suggesting leaving
effective_load() unchanged.
>>
>> [ 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/