Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] sched: CFS low-latency features

Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-27T07:43:36Z

On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 19:49 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> AFAIK, I don't think we would end up starving the system in any possible way.

Correct, it does maintain fairness.

> So far I cannot see a situation where selecting the next buddy would _not_ make
> sense in any kind of input-driven wakeups (interactive, timer, disk, network,
> etc). But maybe it's just a lack of imagination on my part.

The risk is that you end up with always using next-buddy, and we tried
that a while back and that didn't work well for some, Mike might
remember.

Also, when you use timers things like time-outs you really couldn't care
less if its handled sooner rather than later.

Disk is usually so slow you really don't want to consider it
interactive, but then sometimes you might,.. its a really hard problem.

The only clear situation is the direct input, that's a direct link
between the user and our wakeup chain and the user is always important.