Re: [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running

Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13T04:35:26Z

On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 11:06 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 13:48 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> > And I don't like how you dismissed the measured latency improvement.
> > And yes, I do think latency matters. A _lot_.
>
> OK, we'll make it better and sacrifice some throughput, can do, no
> problem.

I'm not seeing high wakeup latencies, even under hefty load. Mathieu's
testcase is bad, but apparently solely due to START_DEBIT placement.
That's kind of a sticky wicket. I've shot it in the heart before, but
regretted doing so when I looked at kbuild vs static load fairness.

-Mike