From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754648Ab0IMSEC (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:04:02 -0400
Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:57235 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751413Ab0IMSEB (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:04:01 -0400
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:03:48 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] check_preempt_tick should not compare vruntime with
 wall time
Message-ID: <20100913180348.GA20171@elte.hu>
References: <20100911195708.GA9273@Krystal>
 <1284288072.2251.91.camel@laptop>
 <20100912203712.GD32327@Krystal>
 <1284382387.2275.265.camel@laptop>
 <1284383758.2275.283.camel@laptop>
 <20100913135621.GA13442@Krystal>
 <1284387398.2275.311.camel@laptop>
 <20100913161641.GA28707@Krystal>
 <AANLkTimB9CjH5SjeY9XmwhTp1tfFPwh-Q1Y4o918h7XD@mail.gmail.com>
 <20100913174533.GA15653@Krystal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100913174533.GA15653@Krystal>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0
X-ELTE-SpamLevel: 
X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no
X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 
X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5
	-2.0 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0002]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:

> * Linus Torvalds (torvalds@linux-foundation.org) wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
> > <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, the long IRC discussions we just had convinced me that the current scheme
> > > takes things into account by adapting the granularity dynamically, but also got
> > > me to notice that check_preempt seems to compare vruntime with wall time, which
> > > is utterly incorrect. So maybe all my patch was doing was to expose this bug:
> > 
> > Do you have latency numbers for this patch?
> 
> Sure, see below,
> 
> In addition to this patch, [...]

Note, which is a NOP for your latency workload.

> [...] I also used Peter's approach of reducing the minimum granularity

Ok, that's the very first patch i sent yesterday morning - so we also 
have my numbers that it reduces latencies.

To move things along i'll apply it with your Reported-by and Acked-by 
line, ok?

We can also work on the other, more complex things after that, but first 
lets make some progress on the latency front ...

Thanks,

	Ingo