Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 May 2007 16:52:59 +0530 | From | Srivatsa Vaddagiri <> | Subject | Re: fair clock use in CFS |
| |
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 04:05:00AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > The variability in ->fair_clock advancement rate was the mistake, at > least according to my way of thinking. The queue's virtual time clock > effectively stops under sufficiently high load, possibly literally in > the event of fixpoint underflow.
[snip]
> Basically it needs to move closer to EEVDF in these respects.
Doesn't EEVDF have the same issue? From the paper:
V(t) = 1/(w1 + w2 + ...wn)
-- Regards, vatsa - 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/
| |