Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755466AbZLDKUJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2009 05:20:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755080AbZLDKUH (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2009 05:20:07 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44815 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754443AbZLDKUG (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2009 05:20:06 -0500 Message-ID: <4B18E257.2080009@suse.de> Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:50:07 +0530 From: Suresh Jayaraman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090915 SUSE/3.0b4-3.6 Thunderbird/3.0b4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Peter Zijlstra , LKML Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: fix GENTLE_FAIR_SLEEPERS dependency References: <4B18D66E.8020905@suse.de> <20091204095408.GA26118@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20091204095408.GA26118@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1621 Lines: 43 On 12/04/2009 03:24 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Suresh Jayaraman wrote: > >> The newly introduced GENTLE_FAIR_SLEEPERS does not seem to have any >> effect without FAIR_SLEEPERS. Fix sysctl.sched_features to reflect >> this. Without this change, a user who sets GENTLE_FAIR_SLEEPERS >> without FAIR_SLEEPERS would assume gentle sleeper fairness which >> is not guaranteed. >> > > There's a lot of other dependencies between scheduler features so it's > possible to change it without it having an effect on the scheduler. > > sched_features is really a development/debugging facility, you have to > know what you are doing. I think originally introduced as a development/debugging facility, sched_features is slowly transforming into a viable tool for System Administrators, by looking at the impact of turning on/off some of these features on some workloads (especially non-desktop workloads). And I think these benefits should be passed on to the end users perhaps in the form of documentation. > Might be worth adding a comment to the feature definition place itself > in the source - explain what it does and how it makes sense (and how it > doesnt). > Yes it make more sense to make such changes as part of documentation than a code enforcement. I'll try and collect some of the useful tuning information. Thanks, -- Suresh Jayaraman -- 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/