All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:52:40 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimmkmeyFg6wSw4Ej=gqLAHgcB5puRxvAa_14eZp@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1284237950.2251.59.camel@laptop>

On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 22:36 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> But if you want us to change the scheduler to be more latency sensitive
>> and trade in throughput for other benchmarks, we can do that.
>
> Really, just say "latency trumps throughput" and we'll make it so.

Nothing is ever that black-and-white.

But latency really _is_ important. And it's often overlooked, because
few benchmarks actually test it. So when somebody sends you actual
measured latency numbers, you shouldn't be so cavalier. And you
shouldn't say "trumps throughput", since it's clearly a matter of
balancing, and quite frankly, Mathieu's patch does seem to try to
balance things.

As mentioned, it does seem to make tons of conceptual sense to take
the number of running threads into account for the whole scheduling
granularity decision. After all, we already do that for the other
important numbers (the scheduling period and time slice).

So to me it looks like you're just being negative, without actually
looking at the patch and giving it some fair thought. That's what I'm
objecting to.

                              Linus

  reply	other threads:[~2010-09-11 20:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-09-11 17:37 [RFC patch 0/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-11 17:37 ` [RFC patch 1/2] " Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-11 18:57   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-11 19:21     ` Linus Torvalds
2010-09-11 20:36       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-11 20:45         ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-11 20:52           ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2010-09-12  9:07             ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-11 20:48         ` Linus Torvalds
2010-09-12  9:06           ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-12  9:14             ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-12 20:39               ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 12:54                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-12 20:34             ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 12:53               ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13  4:35             ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13  8:41               ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 11:22                 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 13:52                 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-09-13 13:54                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 14:02                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 14:21                       ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-11 20:52         ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-11 19:57     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-12 10:41       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-12 20:37         ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 12:53           ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 13:15             ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 13:56               ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 14:16                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 14:43                   ` Steven Rostedt
2010-09-13 15:25                     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 15:39                       ` Steven Rostedt
2010-09-13 16:16                   ` [RFC PATCH] check_preempt_tick should not compare vruntime with wall time Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 16:36                     ` Linus Torvalds
2010-09-13 17:45                       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 17:51                         ` Linus Torvalds
2010-09-13 18:01                           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 18:10                           ` Steven Rostedt
2010-09-13 18:03                         ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 18:19                           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 18:23                             ` [PATCH] sched: Improve latencies under load by decreasing minimum scheduling granularity Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 18:28                               ` Joe Perches
2010-09-13 19:44                               ` Linus Torvalds
2010-09-13 20:00                                 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 18:19                         ` [RFC PATCH] check_preempt_tick should not compare vruntime with wall time Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 17:36                     ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 17:56                       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-14  2:10                     ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13 14:44                 ` [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running Mike Galbraith
     [not found]               ` <1284386179.10436.6.camel@marge.simson.net>
2010-09-13 15:53                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 18:04                   ` [RFC][PATCH] sched: Improve tick preemption Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-14  2:27                   ` [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running Mike Galbraith
2010-09-12  6:14   ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-12  7:21     ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-12 18:16       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13  4:13         ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13  6:41           ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13  7:08             ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13  7:35               ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13  8:35               ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13  9:16                 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13  9:37                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13  9:50                     ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13  9:55                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 10:06                         ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13 10:45                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 11:43                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 11:49                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 12:32                             ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13 20:19             ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 20:56               ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-12 18:13     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-12 23:44       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-11 17:37 ` [RFC patch 2/2] sched: sleepers coarse granularity on wakeup Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-12 12:44 ` [RFC patch 0/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running Peter Zijlstra

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='AANLkTimmkmeyFg6wSw4Ej=gqLAHgcB5puRxvAa_14eZp@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tony@atomide.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.