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

[Peter Williams]

Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 09:01:55AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 11:26:21PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 11:09:55PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> > > > > All things are not equal; they all have different properties. I like
> > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 08:15:03AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > Exactly. So we have to explore those properties and evaluate performance
> > > > (in all meanings of the word). That's only logical.
> > > Any chance you'd be willing to put down a few thoughts on what sorts
> > > of standards you'd like to set for both correctness (i.e. the bare
> > > minimum a scheduler implementation must do to be considered valid
> > > beyond not oopsing) and performance metrics (i.e. things that produce
> > > numbers for each scheduler you can compare to say "this scheduler is
> > > better than this other scheduler at this.").
> > Yeah I guess that's the hard part :)
> >
> > For correctness, I guess fairness is an easy one. I think that unfairness
> > is basically a bug and that it would be very unfortunate to merge something
> > unfair. But this is just within the context of a single runqueue... for
> > better or worse, we allow some unfairness in multiprocessors for performance
> > reasons of course.
>
> I'm a big fan of fairness, but I think it's a bit early to declare it
> a mandatory feature. Bounded unfairness is probably something we can
> agree on, ie "if we decide to be unfair, no process suffers more than
> a factor of x".
>  
> > Latency. Given N tasks in the system, an arbitrary task should get
> > onto the CPU in a bounded amount of time (excluding events like freak
> > IRQ holdoffs and such, obviously -- ie. just considering the context
> > of the scheduler's state machine).
>
> This is a slightly stronger statement than starvation-free (which is
> obviously mandatory). I think you're looking for something like
> "worst-case scheduling latency is proportional to the number of
> runnable tasks".

add "taking into consideration nice and/or real time priorities of 
runnable tasks".  I.e. if a task is nice 19 it can expect to wait longer 
to get onto the CPU than if it was nice 0.

> Which I think is quite a reasonable requirement.
>
> I'm pretty sure the stock scheduler falls short of both of these
> guarantees though.

Peter
--
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
 -- Ambrose Bierce
-
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/