From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758176AbYEWJd7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 May 2008 05:33:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754774AbYEWJdv (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 May 2008 05:33:51 -0400 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:44562 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754744AbYEWJdu (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 May 2008 05:33:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 15:12:16 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: "Li, Tong N" Cc: "Peter Zijlstra" , "Chris Friesen" , , , Subject: Re: fair group scheduler not so fair? Message-ID: <20080523094216.GK3780@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <4834B75A.40900@nortel.com> <1211439417.29104.7.camel@twins> <4835D14B.20904@nortel.com> <1211486868.6463.134.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <5FD5754DDBA0B1499B5A0B4BB54194850357ED61@fmsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5FD5754DDBA0B1499B5A0B4BB54194850357ED61@fmsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 01:18:33PM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote: > Peter, > > I didn't look at your patches, but I thought you were flattening group > weights down to task-level so that the scheduler only looks at per-task > weights. Wouldnt that require task weight readjustment upon every fork/exit? > That'd make group fairness as good as task fairness gets. Is > this still the case? -- Regards, vatsa