Nick Piggin wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
Oh, I forgot: Ingo once introduced some code to bail early (though
for different reasons and under different conditions), and this
actually was found to cause significant regressions in some database
workloads.
well, we both did changes with that effect - pretty much any change in
this area can cause a regression on _some_ workload ;) So there wont
be any silver bullet.
Well yes. Although specifically the bail-out-early stuff which IIRC
you did... I wasn't singling you out in particular, I've broken the
scheduler at _least_ as much as you have since starting work on it ;)
... and my point is that there is not much reason to introduce a
possible performance regression because of such a latency in an
artificial test case, especially when there are other sources of
unbound latency when dealing with large numbers of tasks (and on
uniprocessor too, eg. rwsem).
However, as an RT-tree thing obviously I have no problems with it,
but unless your interrupt thread is preemptible, then there isn't
much point because it can cause a similar latency (that your tools
won't detect) simply by running multiple times.
You really want isolcpus on SMP machines to really ensure load
balancing doesn't harm RT behaviour, yeah?
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
