Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752064AbWCNKLF (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Mar 2006 05:11:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752070AbWCNKLF (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Mar 2006 05:11:05 -0500 Received: from mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.186]:29121 "EHLO mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752064AbWCNKLE (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Mar 2006 05:11:04 -0500 From: Con Kolivas To: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [2.6.16-rc6 patch] remove sleep_avg multiplier Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:10:36 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: Mike Galbraith , lkml , Andrew Morton References: <1142329861.9710.16.camel@homer> <20060314095654.GA8756@elte.hu> <200603142105.38225.kernel@kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: <200603142105.38225.kernel@kolivas.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200603142110.37017.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1508 Lines: 35 On Tuesday 14 March 2006 21:05, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Tuesday 14 March 2006 20:56, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > Greetings, > > > > > > The patchlet below removes the sleep_avg multiplier. This multiplier > > > was necessary back when we had 10 seconds of dynamic range in > > > sleep_avg, but now that we only have one second, it causes that one > > > second to be compressed down to 100ms in some cases. This is > > > particularly noticeable when compiling a kernel in a slow NFS mount, > > > and I believe it to be a very likely candidate for other recently > > > reported network related interactivity problems. > > > > > > In testing, I can detect no negative impact of this removal. IMHO, > > > this constitutes a bug-fix, and as such is suitable for 2.6.16. > > > > looks good to me. The biggest complaint against the current scheduler is > > over-eager interactivity boosting - this patch moderates that in a > > smooth way. > > I actually think Mike is right about the change, but has anyone else tested > this patch to also confirm "it has no negative impact" warranting it's > rapid inclusion in 2.6.16? /me smacks himself for misusing "it's" How about an interbench run before and after Mike? Cheers, 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/