From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Ting Yang <tingy@cs.umass.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v7
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 17:17:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070503151741.GC1812@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4639F970.5080701@cs.umass.edu>
* Ting Yang <tingy@cs.umass.edu> wrote:
> + s64 __delta = curr->fair_key - p->fair_key;
> +
> + /*
> + * Take scheduling granularity into account - do not
> + * preempt the current task unless the best task has
> + * a larger than sched_granularity fairness advantage:
> + */
> + if (__delta > niced_granularity(rq, curr, granularity))
> + resched_task(curr);
> +}
>
> This code actually now says, the difference of fair_key needed to
> preempt the current task is amplified by a facto of its weigh (in Al
> Boldi's example 32). However, the weighted task already advance its
> p->fair_key by its weight, (also 32 here). The combination of them
> becomes quadratic!
it's not quadratic in terms of CPU share: the first factor impacts the
CPU share, the second factor impacts the granularity. This means that
reniced workloads will be preempted in a more finegrained way - but
otherwise there's _no_ quadratic effect for CPU time - which is a
completely separate metric. Remember: there are no timeslices in CFS, so
a task can be preempted any number of times without being at a
disadvantage.
> Besides this quadratic effect, another minor issue amplified this
> a little bit further: p->wait_runtime accumulated before. [...]
actually, this 'minor issue' was the main issue that caused the bug ;-)
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-03 15:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-30 5:20 [patch] CFS scheduler, -v7 Al Boldi
2007-05-03 7:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-03 8:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-03 11:16 ` Al Boldi
2007-05-03 12:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-03 13:49 ` Al Boldi
2007-05-03 8:42 ` Al Boldi
2007-05-03 15:02 ` Ting Yang
2007-05-03 15:17 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2007-05-03 16:00 ` Ting Yang
2007-05-03 19:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-03 19:57 ` William Lee Irwin III
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-04-28 15:25 Ingo Molnar
2007-04-28 19:20 ` S.Çağlar Onur
2007-04-28 19:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-04-28 23:42 ` S.Çağlar Onur
2007-04-29 7:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-04-29 12:37 ` S.Çağlar Onur
2007-04-29 15:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-04-29 22:29 ` Dennis Brendel
2007-04-30 14:38 ` S.Çağlar Onur
2007-04-28 19:27 ` S.Çağlar Onur
2007-04-29 17:28 ` Prakash Punnoor
2007-05-04 13:05 ` Prakash Punnoor
2007-04-30 16:29 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-04-30 18:30 ` Balbir Singh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070503151741.GC1812@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tingy@cs.umass.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox