Re: Regression seen for patch "sched:dont decrease idle sleep avg"

[Con Kolivas]

On Wednesday 17 May 2006 23:41, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 22:46 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 May 2006 21:42, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > Fair?  I said interactivity wise.  But what the heck, if we're talking
> > > fairness, I can say the same thing about I/O bound tasks.  Heck, it's
> > > not fair to stop any task from reaching the top, and it's certainly not
> > > fair to let them have (for all practical purposes) all the cpu they
> > > want once they sleep enough.
> >
> > Toss out the I/O bound thing and we turn into a steaming dripping pile of
> > dog doo whenever anything does disk I/O. And damned if there aren't a lot
> > of pcs that have hard disks...
>
> (you should have tried my patch set)

Last one of yours I tried suffered this.

> > Spits and stutters are not starvation. Luckily it gets no worse with this
> > patch.
>
> Ok, I'll accept that.  Spits and stutters _are_ interactivity issues
> though yes?.  Knowing full well that plunking long sleepers into the
> queue you are plunking them into causes spits and stutters, why do you
> insist on doing so?

Because I know of no real world workload that thuds us into spits and 
stutters.

> Oh well, we're well on the way to agreeing to disagree again, so let's
> just get it over with.  I hereby agree to disagree.

Indeed.

-- 
-ck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/