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

Con Kolivas
2006-05-17T15:10:47Z

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