lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [patch] Re: scheduler oddity [bug?]
    From
    Date
    On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 14:16 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
    > On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 12:04 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    >
    > > OK, talked a bit with Ingo, the reason you're doing is that avg_overlap
    > > can easily grow stale.. I can see that happen indeed.
    > >
    > > So the 'perfect' thing would be a task-runtime decay, barring that the
    > > preemption thing seems a sane enough hart-beat of a task.
    > >
    > > How does the below look to you?
    >
    > Other than the fact that the test for sync reject is currently
    > avg_overlap > sysctl_sched_migration_cost, looks fine to me. Having it
    > capped at the boundary is probably the better way to go.

    Heh, doesn't _quite_ work though. The little bugger now hovers just
    under :-/

    pipetest (5976, #threads: 1)
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    se.exec_start : 150672.502691
    se.vruntime : 94882.186606
    se.sum_exec_runtime : 34875.797932
    se.avg_overlap : 0.499993
    nr_switches : 3680
    nr_voluntary_switches : 0
    nr_involuntary_switches : 3680
    se.load.weight : 1024
    policy : 0
    prio : 120
    clock-delta : 112

    pipetest (5977, #threads: 1)
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    se.exec_start : 150665.016951
    se.vruntime : 94817.157909
    se.sum_exec_runtime : 7069.323019
    se.avg_overlap : 0.012718
    nr_switches : 2931
    nr_voluntary_switches : 2930
    nr_involuntary_switches : 1
    se.load.weight : 1024
    policy : 0
    prio : 120
    clock-delta : 117




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-09 14:41    [W:0.029 / U:0.872 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site