[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070502191235.GA2455@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 21:12:35 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Ting Yang <tingy@...umass.edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
* William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com> wrote:
> The coincidental aspect would be that at the time it was written, the
> formal notion of lag was not being used particularly with respect to
> priorities and load weights. [...]
(nice levels for SCHED_OTHER are 'just' an add-on concept to the core of
CFS, in fact i had two wildly different approaches that both did the
trick for users, so i fail to see the relevance of priorities to the
core concept of measuring how much a task is waiting to get on the
runqueue via the 'fair clock' ... but lets move on.)
> Things are moving in good directions on all this as far as I'm
> concerned. Moving according to Ting Yang's analysis should wrap up the
> soundness concerns about intra-queue policy I've had. OTOH load
> balancing I know much less about (not that I was ever any sort of an
> expert on single queue affairs). [...]
the whole move to ->load_weight based calculations was to make CFS
integrate better with load-balancing and to bring the smpnice
infrastructure even more into the scheduler mainstream. [ There's a
small smpnice related buglet i fixed in -v9-to-be (based on Balbir
Singh's feedback), but otherwise it behaves quite well on SMP and that's
not a big surprise: i left the load-balancer largely intact. ]
Ingo
-
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