From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965638AbXCMJ3k (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:29:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965650AbXCMJ3k (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:29:40 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:55072 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965638AbXCMJ3j (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:29:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:29:20 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Con Kolivas Cc: Mike Galbraith , linux kernel mailing list , ck list , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 0/7] RSDL cpu scheduler for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 Message-ID: <20070313092920.GB7648@elte.hu> References: <200703111457.17624.kernel@kolivas.org> <1173762639.7944.45.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <20070313081805.GA22327@elte.hu> <200703132021.50712.kernel@kolivas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200703132021.50712.kernel@kolivas.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean 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=3.0.3 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Con Kolivas wrote: > Well I guess you must have missed where I asked him if he would be > happy if I changed +5 metrics to do whatever he wanted and he refused > to answer me. [...] I'd say lets keep nice levels out of this completely for now - while they should work _too_, it's easy because the scheduler has the 'nice' information. The basic behavior of CPU hogs that matters most. So the question is: if all tasks are on the same nice level, how does, in Mike's test scenario, RSDL behave relative to the current interactivity code? Ingo