Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 Sep 2007 21:20:50 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [ANNOUNCE/RFC] Really Simple Really Fair Scheduler |
| |
* Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > If this basic model is correct, we can look further. > > The basic model is correct insofar I use an absolute time instead of a > relative time, but it's not the essence of my math, so I don't quite > understand the point of this exercise.
thanks. (and i did not claim nor do i want to claim this to be the essence of your efforts - it is very clear from your mails where your focus is.)
My next question then is about this code of yours in the wakeup path:
+static void +enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se) +{ + kclock_t min_time; + + verify_queue(cfs_rq, cfs_rq->curr != se, se); + min_time = get_time_avg(cfs_rq) - se->req_weight_inv; + if ((kclock_t)(se->time_norm - min_time) < 0) + se->time_norm = min_time;
why do you only use the "min_time" if the pre-sleep time_norm is smaller than the min_time? Here 'min_time' is close to the current average. Shouldnt here the woken up task be set to the average time, like i did it in the crude prototype:
+ se->exec_runtime = avg_exec_runtime(cfs_rq);
(and lets again only consider the special case of only having nice-0 tasks.)
Or is it set in a similar way as my prototype does, and i missed some detail why that branch is there?
Ingo - 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/
| |