lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to CFS
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:36:47PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Temporarily, yes. All this only works when averaged out.

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:03:53PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> So essentially when we calculate delta_mine component for each of those
> 1000 tasks, we will find that it has executed for 1 tick (4 ms say) but
> its fair share was very very low.
> fair_share = delta_exec * p->load_weight / total_weight
> If p->load_weight has been calculated after factoring in hierarchy (as
> you outlined in a previous mail), then p->load_weight of those 1000 tasks
> will be far less compared to the p->load_weight of one task belonging to
> other user, correct? Just to make sure I get all this correct:

You've got it all correct.


On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:03:53PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> User U1 has tasks T0 - T999
> User U2 has task T1000
> assuming each task's weight is 1 and each user's weight is 1 then:
> WT0 = (WU1 / WU1 + WU2) * (WT0 / WT0 + WT1 + ... + WT999)
> = (1 / 1 + 1) * (1 / 1000)
> = 1/2000
> = 0.0005
> WT1 ..WT999 will be same as WT0
> whereas, weight of T1000 will be:
> WT1000 = (WU1 / WU1 + WU2) * (WT1000 / WT1000)
> = (1 / 1 + 1) * (1/1)
> = 0.5
> ?

Yes, these calculations are correct.


On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:03:53PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> So when T0 (or T1 ..T999) executes for 1 tick (4ms), their fair share would
> be:
> T0's fair_share (delta_mine)
> = 4 ms * 0.0005 / (0.0005 * 1000 + 0.5)
> = 4 ms * 0.0005 / 1
> = 0.002 ms (2000 ns)
> This would cause T0's ->wait_runtime to go negative sharply, causing it to be
> inserted back in rb-tree well ahead in future. One change I can forsee
> in CFS is with regard to limit_wait_runtime() ..We will have to change
> its default limit, atleast when group fairness thingy is enabled.
> Compared to this when T1000 executes for 1 tick, its fair share would be
> calculated as:
> T1000's fair_share (delta_mine)
> = 4 ms * 0.5 / (0.0005 * 1000 + 0.5)
> = 4 ms * 0.5 / 1
> = 2 ms (2000000 ns)
> Its ->wait_runtime will drop less significantly, which lets it be
> inserted in rb-tree much to the left of those 1000 tasks (and which indirectly
> lets it gain back its fair share during subsequent schedule cycles).

This analysis is again entirely correct.


On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:03:53PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Hmm ..is that the theory?
> Ingo, do you have any comments on this approach?
> /me is tempted to try this all out.

Yes, this is the theory behind using task weights to flatten the task
group hierarchies. My prior post assumed all this and described a method
to make nice numbers behave as expected in the global context atop it.


-- wli
-
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: 2007-05-31 10:45    [W:0.103 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site