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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
