From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>
To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
efault@gmx.de, tingy@cs.umass.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fair clock use in CFS
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 20:32:34 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070514150234.GB6103@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200705141031.13528.dhazelton@enter.net>
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 10:31:13AM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> Hrm... Okay, so you're saying that "fair_clock" runs slower the more process
> there are running to keep the above run-up in "Time Spent on CPU" I noticed
> based solely on your initial example? If that is the case, then I can see the
> fairness - its just not visible from a really quick look at the code and the
> simplified description you gave earlier.
>From the code:
update_curr()
delta_fair = delta_exec * NICE_0_LOAD;
do_div(delta_fair, rq->raw_weighted_load);
..
rq->fair_clock += delta_fair;
Although wall clock would have advanced by delta_exec, fair clock
advances only by delta_fair.
More the load on the CPU (rq->raw_weighted_load), slower is this advance
compared to wall clock.
--
Regards,
vatsa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-14 14:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-14 8:33 fair clock use in CFS Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-05-14 10:29 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-14 10:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-14 11:05 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-14 11:22 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-05-14 11:20 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-14 12:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-14 23:57 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-14 20:20 ` Ting Yang
2007-05-14 11:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-14 14:31 ` Daniel Hazelton
2007-05-14 15:02 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri [this message]
2007-05-14 15:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-15 2:59 ` David Schwartz
2007-05-14 21:24 ` Ting Yang
2007-05-15 0:57 ` Ting Yang
2007-05-14 23:23 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-14 11:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-14 13:04 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-05-14 13:15 ` Ingo Molnar
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-05-14 15:02 Al Boldi
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=20070514150234.GB6103@in.ibm.com \
--to=vatsa@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dhazelton@enter.net \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tingy@cs.umass.edu \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/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