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

William Lee Irwin III
2007-04-17T22:59:00Z

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:32:56PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> 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.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 05:39:09PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> Good. This has a couple nice mathematical properties, including
> "bounded unfairness" which I mentioned earlier. What base are you
> looking at?

I'm working with the following suggestion:

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 09:07:49AM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> Nonlinear is a must IMO. I would suggest X = exp(ln(10)/10) ~= 1.2589
> That value has the property that a nice=10 task gets 1/10th the cpu of a
> nice=0 task, and a nice=20 task gets 1/100 of nice=0. I think that
> would be fairly easy to explain to admins and users so that they can
> know what to expect from nicing tasks.

I'm not likely to write the testcase until this upcoming weekend, though.

-- wli