On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 23:39 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Are there better options for the utility function, or can we tune it to > > There is nothing better that isn't a lot slower.
Do you care to elaborate why? As-is, I find this statement to not be convincing; at the very least we need to document why we think that something time-based is the best option. Other tuning attempts have looked at rates of aborted, attempted, and committed txns, for example. Why do we measure nb. of transactions in a whole period, and can't get the same info through measuring smaller but more specific time intervals (e.g., how long we wait for a serial txn)?
