Subject: Re: interactive task starvation
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>,
       bugsplatter@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20060321111850.GA2776@elte.hu>
References: <200603090036.49915.kernel@kolivas.org>
	 <20060317090653.GC13387@elte.hu> <1142592375.7895.43.camel@homer>
	 <1142615721.7841.15.camel@homer> <1142838553.8441.13.camel@homer>
	 <20060321064723.GH21493@w.ods.org> <1142927498.7667.34.camel@homer>
	 <20060321091353.GA25248@w.ods.org> <20060321091422.GA9207@elte.hu>
	 <20060321111552.GA25651@w.ods.org>  <20060321111850.GA2776@elte.hu>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:07:58 +0100
Message-Id: <1142942878.7807.9.camel@homer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 848
Lines: 22

On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 12:18 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> great work by Mike! One detail: i'd like there to be just one default 
> throttling value, i.e. no grace_g tunables [so that we have just one 
> default scheduler behavior]. Is the default grace_g[12] setting good 
> enough for your workload?

I can make the knobs compile time so we don't see random behavior
reports, but I don't think they can be totally eliminated.  Would that
be sufficient?

If so, the numbers as delivered should be fine for desktop boxen I
think.  People who are building custom kernels can bend to fit as
always.

	-Mike

-
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/