Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched: introduce synchronized idle injection

[Jacob Pan]

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:21:27 +0100 (CET)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >   
> > > Okay. But it does mean that the defeault idle period is 5 ticks
> > > (50ms @ HZ=100) and not 5 ms  
> > correct. my reason is to scale with various HZ values.  
> 
> So for smaller HZ values we get longer disruption. That's well thought
> out scaling.
well it might be too long for embedded systems who uses 100HZ. Is there
a better way to scale in sub tick level?

My original thought was for smaller HZ value, I assume they care less
about latency, so the idle injection period is proportional to what
they set for HZ.
--
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/