lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Regression seen for patch "sched:dont decrease idle sleep avg"
Date
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 11:22, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote on Monday, May 15, 2006 4:45 PM
>
> > On Tuesday 16 May 2006 05:01, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > > I don't think the if and the else block is doing the same thing. In the
> > > if block, the p->sleep_avg is unconditionally boosted to ceiling for
> > > all tasks, though it will not reduce sleep_avg for tasks that already
> > > exceed the ceiling. Bumping up sleep_avg will then translate into
> > > priority boost of MAX_BONUS-1, which potentially can be too high.
> >
> > Yes it's only designed to detect something that has been asleep for an
> > arbitrary long time and "categorised as idle"; it is not supposed to be a
> > priority stepping stone for everything, in this case at MAX_BONUS-1. Mike
> > proposed doing this instead, but it was never my intent. Your comment is
> > not quite correct as it just happens to be MAX_BONUS-1 at nice 0, and not
> > any other nice value.
>
> Huh??
>
> sleep_avg is set at constant:
> p->sleep_avg = JIFFIES_TO_NS(MAX_SLEEP_AVG - DEF_TIMESLICE);
>
>
> The bonus calculation is:
>
> #define CURRENT_BONUS(p) \
> (NS_TO_JIFFIES((p)->sleep_avg) * MAX_BONUS / MAX_SLEEP_AVG)
>
> bonus = CURRENT_BONUS(p) - MAX_BONUS / 2;
>
> None of the calculation that I see uses nice value. Did I miss something?

My bad. You're correct, sorry.

--
-ck
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-05-16 03:47    [W:0.117 / U:1.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site