From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030382AbWD1NJ5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:09:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030385AbWD1NJ5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:09:57 -0400 Received: from mail18.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.199]:42918 "EHLO mail18.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030382AbWD1NJ4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:09:56 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: MAEDA Naoaki Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [PATCH 0/9] CPU controller Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:09:31 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith , akpm@osdl.org, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net References: <20060428013730.9582.9351.sendpatchset@moscone.dvs.cs.fujitsu.co.jp> <200604282011.36917.kernel@kolivas.org> <44520581.3090404@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <44520581.3090404@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200604282309.32320.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 28 April 2006 22:07, MAEDA Naoaki wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > > I agree with Mike here. It's either global resource management or it > > isn't. If one user is using all interactive tasks and the other user none > > it's unfair resource management. > > My intention was not to hurt interactive task's response, but it seems > that just ignoring interactive tasks is not good. I'll consider > regulating interactive tasks also. I appreciate the gesture of concern over interactive tasks :-) Unfortunately it doesn't change the fact that interactive tasks can also consume large proportions of the resources, and that any interactivity estimator will get it wrong on occasion and flag a non interactive task as interactive. -- -ck