Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Jun 2018 15:21:39 +0100 | From | Quentin Perret <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |