[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity
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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.101 / U:2.976 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site