From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932144Ab0JLJro (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2010 05:47:44 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:47871 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757109Ab0JLJrm (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2010 05:47:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:47:35 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: William Pitcock Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, efault@gmx.de, kernel@kolivas.org Subject: Re: [PATCH try 5] CFS: Add hierarchical tree-based penalty. Message-ID: <20101012094735.GH20366@elte.hu> References: <20101012093044.GD20366@elte.hu> <8358526.1721286876359420.JavaMail.root@ifrit.dereferenced.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8358526.1721286876359420.JavaMail.root@ifrit.dereferenced.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * William Pitcock wrote: > Hi, > > ----- "Ingo Molnar" wrote: > > > * William Pitcock wrote: > > > > > Inspired by the recent change to BFS by Con Kolivas, this patch > > causes > > > vruntime to be penalized based on parent depth from their root task > > > > > group. > > > > > > I have, for the moment, decided to make it a default feature since > > the > > > design of CFS ensures that broken applications depending on task > > > enqueue behaviour behaving traditionally will continue to work. > > > > Just curious, is this v5 submission a reply to Peter's earlier review > > of > > your v3 patch? If yes then please explicitly outline the changes you > > did > > so that Peter and others do not have to guess about the direction your > > > > work is taking. > > I just did that in the email I just sent. Simply put, I was talking > with Con a few weeks ago about the concept of having a maximum amount > of service for all threads belonging to a process. This did not work > out so well, so Con proposed penalizing based on fork depth, which > still allows us to maintain interactivity with make -j64 running in > the background. > > Actually, I lie: it works great for server scenarios where you have > some sysadmin also running azureus. Azureus gets penalized instead, > but other apps like audacious get penalized too. Thanks for the explanation! Ingo