Re: [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr

From:		Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>
To:		Peter Zijlstra <peterz-AT-infradead.org>
Subject:		Re: [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running
Date:		Sat, 11 Sep 2010 12:21:06 -0700
Message-ID:		<AANLkTin0LOuTOcJPiZcZGeZMdqsy2dohyrREw2GGhddJ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc:		Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers-AT-efficios.com>, LKML <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>, Tony Lindgren <tony-AT-atomide.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault-AT-gmx.de>
Archive-link:		Article, Thread

On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> Not at all charmed, this look like random changes without conceptual
> integrity.

I wish people actually looked at the _numbers_ and reacted to them,
rather than argue theory.

Guys, we have cases of bad latency under load. That's a pretty
undeniable fact. Arguing against a patch because of some theoretical
issue without at all even acknowledging the latency improvements is, I
think, really bad form.

So please. Acknowledge the latency issue. And come up with better
patches, rather than just shoot down alternatives. Because if the
answer is just NAK with no alternative, then that answer is worthless.
No?

                       Linus

(Log in to post comments)

Re: [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running

Posted Sep 17, 2010 19:37 UTC (Fri) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link]

If only Linus had responded that way to Con Kolivas' latency patchset. Live and learn.