[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] CFS (Completely Fair Scheduler), v2
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> this is the second release of the CFS (Completely Fair Scheduler)
>>> patchset, against v2.6.21-rc7:
>>> i'd like to thank everyone for the tremendous amount of feedback and
>>> testing the v1 patch got - i could hardly keep up with just reading the
>>> mails! Some of the stuff people addressed i couldnt implement yet, i
>>> mostly concentrated on bugs, regressions and debuggability.
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:46:57PM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
>> Have you considered using rq->raw_weighted_load instead of
>> rq->nr_running in calculating fair_clock? This would take the nice
>> value (or RT priority) of the other tasks into account when determining
>> what's fair.
> I suspect you mean (curr->load_weight*delta_exec)/rq->raw_weighted_load
> in update_curr().

Or something like that, yes. :-)

I was trying to make the point that the weighted load stuff provides
useful data for implementing nice (in a number of ways e.g. see spa_ebs).

Also, now that the old time slices are gone, a simpler more efficient
function for mapping RT priority or nice (as appropriate) to
p->load_weight can be used instead of the current one which uses the
time slice the task would have been allocated as a basis. I'd suggest
the function that the current one replaced. (Because it was mine :-)).

Peter Williams

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-17 10:33    [W:0.059 / U:8.784 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site