[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:0.028 / U:10.320 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site