Re: [PATCH] CFS: Fix missing digit off in wmult table

[Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>]

Hi,

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> > > > As soon as you add another loop the difference changes again, 
> > > > while it's always correct to say it gets 25% more cpu time [...]
> > > 
> > > yep, and i'll add the relative effect to the comment too.
> > 
> > Why did you cut off the rest of the sentence?
> 
> (no need to become hostile, i answered to that portion of your sentence 
> separately, which was logically detached from the other portion of your 
> sentence. I marked the cut with the '[...]' sign. )

Could you please stop with these accusations?
Could you please point me to the mail with the separate answer?

> > To illustrate the problem a little different: a task with a nice level 
> > -20 got around 700% more cpu time (or 8 times more), now it gets 8500% 
> > more cpu time (or 86.7 times more). You don't think that change to the 
> > nice levels is a little drastic?
> 
> This was discussed on lkml in detail, see the CFS threads.

Which are quite big, so I skipped most of it, a more precise pointer would 
be appreciated.

> It has been a 
> common request for nice levels to be more logical (i.e. to make them 
> universal and to detach them from HZ) and for them to be more effective 
> as well.

Huh? What has this to do with HZ? The scheduler used ticks internally, but 
it's irrelevant to what the user sees via the nice levels.
So the question still stands that this change may be a little drastic, as 
you changed the nice levels of _all_ users, not just of those who were 
previously interested in CFS.

bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/