On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Alex Shi <alex....@intel.com> 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 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/
