From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750958AbWEQPKr (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 May 2006 11:10:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751296AbWEQPKr (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 May 2006 11:10:47 -0400 Received: from mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.188]:47744 "EHLO mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750958AbWEQPKq (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 May 2006 11:10:46 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: Regression seen for patch "sched:dont decrease idle sleep avg" Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 01:10:21 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, "Chen, Kenneth W" , mingo@elte.hu, Andrew Morton References: <4t16i2$12rqnu@orsmga001.jf.intel.com> <200605172246.39444.kernel@kolivas.org> <1147873294.7596.13.camel@homer> In-Reply-To: <1147873294.7596.13.camel@homer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200605180110.22270.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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