From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
Cc: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, "'Ingo Molnar'" <mingo@elte.hu>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: optimize activate_task for RT task - v2
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 08:00:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1163574019.6175.30.camel@Homer.simpson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000401c70848$520252e0$d834030a@amr.corp.intel.com>
On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 15:55 -0800, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Perhaps the following is a better patch compare to earlier one.
> The p->sleep_type are only for SCHED_NORMAL as well, so we can
> bypass them altogether in one shot.
>
>
>
>
> RT task does not participate in interactiveness priority and thus
> shouldn't be bothered with timestamp and p->sleep_type manipulation
> when task is being put on run queue. Bypass all of the them with
> a single if (rt_task) test.
Personally, I think it's best to leave it as it is. With that change,
if someone changes policy while the task is waiting to get cpu, it will
be requeued, and the on-runqueue bonus logic will then end up using
wildly inaccurate information. Unlikely, true (hmm, what about PI...
afaik, works both ways), but from the correctness standpoint, I think
the information we use in heuristics should always be kept as accurate
as possible.
If you want to shave cycles, IMHO the better investment would be to get
rid of the division in schedule().
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-15 6:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-11-14 23:55 Chen, Kenneth W
2006-11-15 7:00 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2006-11-15 8:24 ` Mike Galbraith
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1163574019.6175.30.camel@Homer.simpson.net \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome