Re: [patch] CFS (Completely Fair Scheduler), v2

[Peter Williams]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > this is the second release of the CFS (Completely Fair Scheduler) 
> > > patchset, against v2.6.21-rc7:
> > >    http://redhat.com/~mingo/cfs-scheduler/sched-cfs-v2.patch
> > > i'd like to thank everyone for the tremendous amount of feedback and 
> > > testing the v1 patch got - i could hardly keep up with just reading the 
> > > mails! Some of the stuff people addressed i couldnt implement yet, i 
> > > mostly concentrated on bugs, regressions and debuggability.
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:46:57PM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> > Have you considered using rq->raw_weighted_load instead of 
> > rq->nr_running in calculating fair_clock?  This would take the nice 
> > value (or RT priority) of the other tasks into account when determining 
> > what's fair.
>
> I suspect you mean (curr->load_weight*delta_exec)/rq->raw_weighted_load
> in update_curr().

Or something like that, yes. :-)

I was trying to make the point that the weighted load stuff provides 
useful data for implementing nice (in a number of ways e.g. see spa_ebs).

Also, now that the old time slices are gone, a simpler more efficient 
function for mapping RT priority or nice (as appropriate) to 
p->load_weight can be used instead of the current one which uses the 
time slice the task would have been allocated as a basis.  I'd suggest 
the function that the current one replaced.  (Because it was mine :-)).

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/