lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-05-14 13:17    [W:0.096 / U:4.356 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site