Hi Srivatsa, On Jan 28, 2008 3:31 AM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Given that sysctl_sched_wakeup_granularity is set to 10ms by default, > this doesn't sound abnormal.
Indeed, by lowering sched_wakeup_granularity I get much better latencies, but lowering sched_latency seems to be more effective. > NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS feature gives credit for sleeping only to tasks and > not group-level entities. With the patch attached, I could see that wakeup > latencies with FAIR_USER_SCHED are restored to the same level as > !FAIR_USER_SCHED. Thanks for the patch, it works perfectly. > However I am not sure whether that is the way to go. We want to let one group > of > tasks running as much as possible until the fairness/wakeup-latency threshold > is > exceeded. If someone does want better wakeup latencies between groups too, > they > can always tune sysctl_sched_wakeup_granularity. Having an inconsistency here between FAIR_USER_SCHED and !FAIR_USER_SCHED sounds strange, but Ingo took the patch, so I'm happy :-) Thanks for the replies. -- Guillaume -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/