Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:24:22AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> yeah. If you could come up with a sane definition that also translates 
>> into low overhead on the algorithm side that would be great!

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 05:08:09PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> How's this:
> If you're running two identical CPU hog tasks A and B differing only by nice
> level (Anice, Bnice), the ratio cputime(A)/cputime(B) should be a
> constant f(Anice - Bnice).
> Other definitions make things hard to analyze and probably not
> well-bounded when confronted with > 2 tasks.
> I -think- this implies keeping a separate scaled CPU usage counter,
> where the scaling factor is a trivial exponential function of nice
> level where f(0) == 1. Then you schedule based on this scaled usage
> counter rather than unscaled.
> I also suspect we want to keep the exponential base small so that the
> maximal difference is 10x-100x.

I'm already working with this as my assumed nice semantics (actually
something with a specific exponential base, suggested in other emails)
until others start saying they want something different and agree.


-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/