lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8

    * William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:

    > The coincidental aspect would be that at the time it was written, the
    > formal notion of lag was not being used particularly with respect to
    > priorities and load weights. [...]

    (nice levels for SCHED_OTHER are 'just' an add-on concept to the core of
    CFS, in fact i had two wildly different approaches that both did the
    trick for users, so i fail to see the relevance of priorities to the
    core concept of measuring how much a task is waiting to get on the
    runqueue via the 'fair clock' ... but lets move on.)

    > Things are moving in good directions on all this as far as I'm
    > concerned. Moving according to Ting Yang's analysis should wrap up the
    > soundness concerns about intra-queue policy I've had. OTOH load
    > balancing I know much less about (not that I was ever any sort of an
    > expert on single queue affairs). [...]

    the whole move to ->load_weight based calculations was to make CFS
    integrate better with load-balancing and to bring the smpnice
    infrastructure even more into the scheduler mainstream. [ There's a
    small smpnice related buglet i fixed in -v9-to-be (based on Balbir
    Singh's feedback), but otherwise it behaves quite well on SMP and that's
    not a big surprise: i left the load-balancer largely intact. ]

    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-05-02 21:15    [W:3.195 / U:0.304 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site