Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 May 2007 21:12:35 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |