From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752848AbXDQIa5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:30:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752851AbXDQIa5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:30:57 -0400 Received: from omta03ps.mx.bigpond.com ([144.140.82.155]:39452 "EHLO omta03ps.mx.bigpond.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752848AbXDQIa4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:30:56 -0400 Message-ID: <462485B8.8090404@bigpond.net.au> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:30:48 +1000 From: Peter Williams User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: William Lee Irwin III CC: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Con Kolivas , Nick Piggin , Mike Galbraith , Arjan van de Ven , Thomas Gleixner , caglar@pardus.org.tr, Willy Tarreau , Gene Heskett , Dmitry Adamushko Subject: Re: [patch] CFS (Completely Fair Scheduler), v2 References: <20070416220715.GA4071@elte.hu> <46246D61.8010300@bigpond.net.au> <20070417075146.GM2986@holomorphy.com> In-Reply-To: <20070417075146.GM2986@holomorphy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH PLAIN at oaamta03ps.mx.bigpond.com from [58.164.138.40] using ID pwil3058@bigpond.net.au at Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:30:54 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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@bigpond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce