Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:30:48 +1000 | From | Peter Williams <> | Subject | Re: [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: >>> http://redhat.com/~mingo/cfs-scheduler/sched-cfs-v2.patch >>> 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 -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
"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 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/
| |