[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to CFS
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:15:34AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Yes, the larger number of schedulable entities and hence slower
> convergence to groupwise weightings is a disadvantage of the flattening.
> A hybrid scheme seems reasonable enough.

Cool! This puts me back on track to implement hierarchical scheduling in
CFS :)

Once this is done and once I can get containers running on a box, I will
experiment with the flattening trick for user and process levels inside

Thanks for your feedback so far!

> Ideally one would chop the
> hierarchy in pieces so that n levels of hierarchy become k levels of n/k
> weight-flattened hierarchies for this sort of attack to be most effective
> (at least assuming similar branching factors at all levels of hierarchy
> and sufficient depth to the hierarchy to make it meaningful) but this is
> awkward to do. Peeling off the outermost container or whichever level is
> deemed most important in terms of accuracy of aggregate enforcement as
> a hierarchical scheduler is a practical compromise.
> Hybrid schemes will still incur the difficulties of hierarchical
> scheduling, but they're by no means insurmountable. Sadly, only
> complete flattening yields the simplifications that make task group
> weighting enforcement orthogonal to load balancing and the like. The
> scheme I described for global nice number behavior is also not readily
> adaptable to hybrid schemes.

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: 2007-05-31 11:33    [W:0.060 / U:15.812 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site