Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269414AbUJFTsH (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:48:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269415AbUJFTsH (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:48:07 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:28547 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269416AbUJFTrT (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:47:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 12:39:59 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: "Chen, Kenneth W" Cc: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Default cache_hot_time value back to 10ms Message-Id: <20041006123959.4cf20b3b.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <200410061927.i96JRU607630@unix-os.sc.intel.com> References: <20041005215116.3b0bd028.akpm@osdl.org> <200410061927.i96JRU607630@unix-os.sc.intel.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1609 Lines: 36 "Chen, Kenneth W" wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 9:51 PM > > > Nick Piggin wrote: > > > I'd say it is probably too low level to be a useful tunable (although > > > for testing I guess so... but then you could have *lots* of parameters > > > tunable). > > > > This tunable caused an 11% performance difference in (I assume) TPCx. > > That's a big deal, and people will want to diddle it. > > > > If one number works optimally for all machines and workloads then fine. > > > > But yes, avoiding a tunable would be nice, but we need a tunable to work > > out whether we can avoid making it tunable ;) > > > > Not that I'm soliciting patches or anything. I'll duck this one for now. > > Andrew, can I safely interpret this response as you are OK with having > cache_hot_time set to 10 ms for now? I have a lot of scheduler changes queued up and I view this change as being not very high priority. If someone sends a patch to update -mm then we can run with that, however Ingo's auto-tuning seems a far preferable approach. > And you will merge this change for 2.6.9? I was not planning on doing so, but could be persuaded, I guess. It's very, very late for this and subtle CPU scheduler regressions tend to take a long time (weeks or months) to be identified. - 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/