lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: O(1) batch scheduler

On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Kevin O'Connor wrote:

> I looked through your sched-2.5.25-A5 patch, and I'm confused by the
> idle_count array. It calculates the idle average of the last 9 seconds -
> but why not just use a weighted average. A weighted average is going to
> be very close to the true average, and where it differs the weighted
> average should be preferable.

i agree, the hybrid weighted average you suggest is the right solution
here, because the sampling in that case has a fixed frequency which is
HZ-independent. I've applied your patch to my tree.

the problem with a pure weighted average (ie. no ->idle_count, just a
weighted average calculated in the scheduler tick) is that with HZ=1000
and a 32-bit word length the sampling gets too inaccurate. For the average
to be meaningful it needs to be at least 'a few seconds worth' - which is
'a few thousands of events' - the rounding errors are pretty severe in
that case.

(a good example where a running average has fundamental accuracy problem
is the ->sleep_avg sampling. The frequency of wakeups/sleep events can be
almost arbitrarily high, destroying the accuracy of a weighted average.)

Ingo

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.046 / U:1.944 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site