[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070417075146.GM2986@holomorphy.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:51:46 -0700
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>
To: Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, caglar@...dus.org.tr,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS (Completely Fair Scheduler), v2
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> this is the second release of the CFS (Completely Fair Scheduler)
>> patchset, against v2.6.21-rc7:
>> http://redhat.com/~mingo/cfs-scheduler/sched-cfs-v2.patch
>> i'd like to thank everyone for the tremendous amount of feedback and
>> testing the v1 patch got - i could hardly keep up with just reading the
>> mails! Some of the stuff people addressed i couldnt implement yet, i
>> mostly concentrated on bugs, regressions and debuggability.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:46:57PM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> Have you considered using rq->raw_weighted_load instead of
> rq->nr_running in calculating fair_clock? This would take the nice
> value (or RT priority) of the other tasks into account when determining
> what's fair.
I suspect you mean (curr->load_weight*delta_exec)/rq->raw_weighted_load
in update_curr().
-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists