Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751509AbWA0Qzq (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:55:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751514AbWA0Qzq (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:55:46 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.de ([213.165.64.21]:30173 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751509AbWA0Qzq (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:55:46 -0500 X-Authenticated: #14349625 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.2.20060127175530.00c3db30@pop.gmx.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:57:32 +0100 To: Mike Galbraith From: Con Kolivas (by way of Mike Galbraith ) Subject: Re: [SCHED] wrong priority calc - SIMPLE test case Cc: Paolo Ornati , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ingo Molnar , Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0604-3, 01/26/2006), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2152 Lines: 48 On Saturday 14 January 2006 03:15, Mike Galbraith wrote: > At 01:34 AM 1/14/2006 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > >On Saturday 14 January 2006 00:01, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > At 09:51 PM 1/13/2006 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > >See my followup patches that I have posted following "[PATCH 0/5] > > > > sched - interactivity updates". The first 3 patches are what you > > > > tested. These patches are being put up for testing hopefully in -mm. > > > > > > Then the (buggy) version of my simple throttling patch will need to > > > come out. (which is OK, I have a debugged potent++ version) > > > >Your code need not be mutually exclusive with mine. I've simply damped the > >current behaviour. Your sanity throttling is a good idea. > > I didn't mean to imply that they're mutually exclusive, and after doing > some testing, I concluded that it (or something like it) is definitely > still needed. The version that's in mm2 _is_ buggy however, so ripping it > back out wouldn't hurt my delicate little feelings one bit. In fact, it > would give me some more time to instrument and test integration with your > changes. Ok I've communicated this to Andrew (cc'ed here too) so he should remove your patch pending a new version from you. > (Which I think are good btw because they remove what I considered > to be warts; the pipe and uninterruptible sleep barriers. Yes I felt your abuse wrt to these in an earlier email... > Um... try irman2 > now... pure evilness) Hrm I've been using staircase which is immune for so long I'd all but forgotten about this test case. Looking at your code I assume your changes should help this? 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/ - 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/