From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764827AbXGROO4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:14:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755186AbXGROOs (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:14:48 -0400 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:1696 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759112AbXGROOr (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:14:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:14:26 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: Ingo Molnar cc: Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds , James Bruce , Thomas Gleixner , Mike Galbraith , Andrea Arcangeli , Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven , Chris Wright Subject: Re: [PATCH] CFS: Fix missing digit off in wmult table In-Reply-To: <20070718134811.GA9227@elte.hu> Message-ID: References: <469B0D9E.3030402@andrew.cmu.edu> <20070716070610.GA10907@elte.hu> <20070716112037.GA6895@elte.hu> <1184754430.20032.130.camel@twins> <1184763148.20032.135.camel@twins> <20070718134811.GA9227@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > _changing_ it is an option within reason, and we've done it a couple of > times already in the past, and even within CFS (as Peter correctly > observed) we've been through a couple of iterations already. And as i > mentioned it before, the outer edge of nice levels (+19, by far the most > commonly used nice level) was inconsistent to begin with: 3%, 5%, 9% of > nice-0, depending on HZ. Why do you constantly stress level 19? Yes, that one is special, all other positive levels were already relatively consistent. > So changing that to a consistent (and > user-requested) How old is CFS and how many users did it have so far? How many users has the old scheduler, which will be exposed to the new one soon? > 1.5% is a much smaller change than you seem to make it > out to be. The percentage levels are off by a factor of upto _seven_, sorry I fail see how you can characterize this as "small". > So by your standard we could never change the > scheduler. (which your ultimate argument might be after all =B-) Careful, you make assertion about me, for which you have absolutely no base, adding a smiley doesn't make this any funnier. bye, Roman