On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 03:33:45AM -0700, Paul Turner wrote: > Yeah, most of the rationale is super hand-wavy; especially the fairly > arbitrary choice of periods (e.g. busy_idx vs newidle). > > I think the other rationale is: > For smaller indicies (e.g. newidle) we speed up response time by > also cutting motion out of the averages. > > The runnable_avgs themselves actually have a fair bit of history in > them already (50% is last 32ms); but given that they don't need to be > cut-off to respond to load being migrated I'm guessing we could > actually potentially get by with just "instaneous" and "use averages" > where appropriate?
Sure,. worth a try. If things fall over we can always look at it again. > We always end up having to re-pick/tune them based on a variety of > workloads; if we can eliminate them I think it would be a win. Agreed, esp. the plethora of weird idx things we currently have. If we need to re-introduce something it would likely only be the busy case and for that we can immediately link to the balance interval or so. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
