[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070502191033.GV31925@holomorphy.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 12:10:33 -0700
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>
To: "Li, Tong N" <tong.n.li@...el.com>
Cc: tingy@...umass.edu, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
At some point in the past, Ting Yang wrote:
>> Based on my understanding, adopting something like EEVDF in CFS should
>> not be very difficult given their similarities, although I do not have
>> any idea on how this impacts the load balancing for SMP. Does this worth
>> a try?
>> Sorry for such a long email :-)
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 11:42:20AM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote:
> Thanks for the excellent explanation. I think EEVDF and many algs alike
> assume global ordering of all tasks in the system (based on virtual
> time), whereas CFS does so locally on each processor and relies on load
> balancing to achieve fairness across processors. It'd achieve strong
> fairness locally, but I'm not sure about its global fairness properties
> in an MP environment. If ideally the total load weight on each processor
> is always the same, then local fairness would imply global fairness, but
> this is a bin packing problem and is intractable ...
It's sort of obvious how to approximate it, but not entirely obvious
whether a given approximation actually suffices. More help with the
theoretical aspects is needed.
- 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