On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 04:04:49PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
i mean in ff277d4 commit:Your logic will lose fair sleeper bonus in the scenario which I pointed out.However, if se->vruntime -= cfs_rq->min_vruntime is positive, themy patch is based on ff277d4 commit at tip/sched/core.
behavior is different after your patch. e.g. se->vruntime(the
relative vruntime in switched_to_fair()) < min_vruntime -
sysctl_sched_latency/2
before your patch:
se->vruntime = min_vruntime - sysctl_sched_latency/2 (place_entity())
there's no change between before and after.
check it please.
and this logic seems to be no problem to me. :(
se->vruntime += cfs->min_vruntime (switched_to_fair())
se->vruntime = se->vruntime or bonused value (place_entity())
after my patch:
se->vruntime += cfs->min_vruntime (switched_to_fair())
se->vruntime = se->vruntime or bonused value (place_entity())
---
SAME!!!
in addtion, se->vruntime already had a bonused value if eligible,
when it was detached from cfs_rq.
--after your patch:
se->vruntime += cfs->min_vruntime (switched_to_fair())
se->vruntime = se->vruntime (place_entity())
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
--
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/
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/