Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity | Date | Tue, 5 Aug 2003 21:10:29 +1000 |
| |
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 20:54, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > generally that's a sign that the approach might not be the best one. > > Lets face it: we're trying to estimate behavior here. Result: There > ALWAYS will be mistakes in that estimator. The more complex the > estimator the fewer such cases you will have, but the more mis-estimated > such cases will be. > The only way to really deal with estimators is to *ALSO* make the price > you pay on mis-estimation acceptable. For the scheduler that most likely > means that you can't punish as hard as we do now, nor give bonuses as > much as we do now.
It is acceptable. This thread is getting carried away. Just because we continued talking doesn't mean there is suddenly a big problem. There is no sudden drop in performance or handling. It's a tiny tweak which helps and there is no evidence of harm, only a theoretical concern on Nick's part which ended up being a discussion about the merits of sleep_avg as a method of determining interactivity. Yes there probably is a better way of doing it (and I have embarked on one that I stopped doing), but a redesign from scratch now is not what Ingo wants, and I see the logic in his reasoning.
Con
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |