On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 15:30 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 14:06 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I think it might be better to measure the scheduling rate all > > the time, and save the _shortest_ cross-cpu-wakeup and > > same-cpu-wakeup latencies (since bootup) as a reference number. > > > > We might be able to pull this off pretty cheaply as the > > scheduler clock is running all the time and we have all the > > timestamps needed. > > Yeah, that might work. We have some quick kthreads, so saving ctx > distance may get close enough to scheduler cost to be good enough. Or better, shortest idle to idle, that would include the current (bad) nohz cost, and automatically shrink away when that cost shrinks. -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
