[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b647ffbd0705190627x4ff15f3cw19bc292e47257287@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 15:27:54 +0200
From: "Dmitry Adamushko" <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
To: "Peter Williams" <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v12
On 18/05/07, Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au> wrote:
> [...]
> One thing that might work is to jitter the load balancing interval a
> bit. The reason I say this is that one of the characteristics of top
> and gkrellm is that they run at a more or less constant interval (and,
> in this case, X would also be following this pattern as it's doing
> screen updates for top and gkrellm) and this means that it's possible
> for the load balancing interval to synchronize with their intervals
> which in turn causes the observed problem. A jittered load balancing
> interval should break the synchronization. This would certainly be
> simpler than trying to change the move_task() logic for selecting which
> tasks to move.
Just an(quick) another idea. Say, the load balancer would consider not
only p->load_weight but also something like Tw(task) =
(time_spent_on_runqueue / total_task's_runtime) * some_scale_constant
as an additional "load" component (OTOH, when a task starts, it takes
some time for this parameter to become meaningful). I guess, it could
address the scenarios your have described (but maybe break some others
as well :) ...
Any hints on why it's stupid?
>
> Peter
> --
> Peter Williams pwil3058@...pond.net.au
--
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
-
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