lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 00/10] track CPU utilization
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:09:54 (+0100), Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:55:43 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 5 June 2018 at 15:52, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:18:38 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > >> On 5 June 2018 at 15:12, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> wrote:
> > >> I would say no because when one will decrease the other one will not
> > >> increase at the same pace and we will have some wrong behavior or
> > >> decision
> > >
> > > I think I get your point. Yes, sometimes, the slow-moving rt_avg can be
> > > off a little bit (which can be good or bad, depending in the case) if your
> > > RT task runs a lot with very changing behaviour. And again, I'm not
> > > fundamentally against the idea of having extra complexity for RT/IRQ PELT
> > > signals _if_ we have a use-case. But is there a real use-case where we
> > > really need all of that ? That's a true question, I honestly don't have
> > > the answer :-)
> >
> > The iperf test result is another example of the benefit
>
> The iperf test result ? The sysbench test you mean ?

Ah sorry I missed that one form the cover letter ... I'll look into that
then :-)

Thanks,
Quentin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-05 16:22    [W:0.053 / U:23.928 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site