From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756133AbYE3GoV (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2008 02:44:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751761AbYE3GoM (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2008 02:44:12 -0400 Received: from E23SMTP04.au.ibm.com ([202.81.18.173]:47978 "EHLO e23smtp04.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751307AbYE3GoL (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2008 02:44:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 12:13:24 +0530 From: Dhaval Giani To: Chris Friesen Cc: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, pj@sgi.com, Balbir Singh , aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: fair group scheduler not so fair? Message-ID: <20080530064324.GA29381@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Dhaval Giani References: <4834B75A.40900@nortel.com> <20080527171528.GD30285@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <483C4F5A.2010104@nortel.com> <20080528163318.GG30285@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <483DA5E7.5050600@nortel.com> <20080529164607.GC12836@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <483F207D.4010908@nortel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <483F207D.4010908@nortel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Also, although the long-term results are good, the shorter-term fairness > isn't great. Is there a tuneable that would allow for a tradeoff between > performance and fairness? I have people that are looking for within 4% > fairness over a 1sec interval. > How fair does smp fairness look for a !group scenario? I don't expect group schould be able to do much better. -- regards, Dhaval