linux-kernel - Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070417223909.GO11115@waste.org>
Date:	Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:39:09 -0500
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
	Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:32:56PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:24:22AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> yeah. If you could come up with a sane definition that also translates 
> >> into low overhead on the algorithm side that would be great!
> 
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 05:08:09PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > How's this:
> > If you're running two identical CPU hog tasks A and B differing only by nice
> > level (Anice, Bnice), the ratio cputime(A)/cputime(B) should be a
> > constant f(Anice - Bnice).
> > Other definitions make things hard to analyze and probably not
> > well-bounded when confronted with > 2 tasks.
> > I -think- this implies keeping a separate scaled CPU usage counter,
> > where the scaling factor is a trivial exponential function of nice
> > level where f(0) == 1. Then you schedule based on this scaled usage
> > counter rather than unscaled.
> > I also suspect we want to keep the exponential base small so that the
> > maximal difference is 10x-100x.
> 
> I'm already working with this as my assumed nice semantics (actually
> something with a specific exponential base, suggested in other emails)
> until others start saying they want something different and agree.

Good. This has a couple nice mathematical properties, including
"bounded unfairness" which I mentioned earlier. What base are you
looking at?

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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/