From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764622AbXGPMNU (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:13:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756438AbXGPMNL (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:13:11 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:57689 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754618AbXGPMNJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:13:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:12:46 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Roman Zippel Cc: James Bruce , Thomas Gleixner , Mike Galbraith , Linus Torvalds , Andrea Arcangeli , Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven , Chris Wright Subject: Re: [PATCH] CFS: Fix missing digit off in wmult table Message-ID: <20070716121246.GA17880@elte.hu> References: <1184302024.6709.11.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <1184355835.12353.321.camel@chaos> <469B0D9E.3030402@andrew.cmu.edu> <20070716070610.GA10907@elte.hu> <20070716112037.GA6895@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -1.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Roman Zippel wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > As soon as you add another loop the difference changes again, > > > while it's always correct to say it gets 25% more cpu time [...] > > > > yep, and i'll add the relative effect to the comment too. > > Why did you cut off the rest of the sentence? (no need to become hostile, i answered to that portion of your sentence separately, which was logically detached from the other portion of your sentence. I marked the cut with the '[...]' sign. ) > To illustrate the problem a little different: a task with a nice level > -20 got around 700% more cpu time (or 8 times more), now it gets 8500% > more cpu time (or 86.7 times more). You don't think that change to the > nice levels is a little drastic? This was discussed on lkml in detail, see the CFS threads. It has been a common request for nice levels to be more logical (i.e. to make them universal and to detach them from HZ) and for them to be more effective as well. Ingo