Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272644AbTHELFw (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2003 07:05:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272650AbTHELFw (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2003 07:05:52 -0400 Received: from c210-49-248-224.thoms1.vic.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.248.224]:26270 "EHLO mail.kolivas.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272644AbTHELFX (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2003 07:05:23 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: arjanv@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 21:10:29 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 Cc: Nick Piggin , linux kernel mailing list , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Felipe Alfaro Solana References: <200308050207.18096.kernel@kolivas.org> <200308052045.39476.kernel@kolivas.org> <1060080867.5308.2.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> In-Reply-To: <1060080867.5308.2.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200308052110.29435.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1447 Lines: 28 On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 20:54, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > generally that's a sign that the approach might not be the best one. > > Lets face it: we're trying to estimate behavior here. Result: There > ALWAYS will be mistakes in that estimator. The more complex the > estimator the fewer such cases you will have, but the more mis-estimated > such cases will be. > The only way to really deal with estimators is to *ALSO* make the price > you pay on mis-estimation acceptable. For the scheduler that most likely > means that you can't punish as hard as we do now, nor give bonuses as > much as we do now. It is acceptable. This thread is getting carried away. Just because we continued talking doesn't mean there is suddenly a big problem. There is no sudden drop in performance or handling. It's a tiny tweak which helps and there is no evidence of harm, only a theoretical concern on Nick's part which ended up being a discussion about the merits of sleep_avg as a method of determining interactivity. Yes there probably is a better way of doing it (and I have embarked on one that I stopped doing), but a redesign from scratch now is not what Ingo wants, and I see the logic in his reasoning. Con - 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/