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 15:55:43 (+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 ?

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-06-05 16:11    [W:2.197 / U:0.108 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site