[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070531054828.GB663@in.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 11:18:28 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
efault@....de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tingy@...umass.edu,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>, kernel@...ivas.org,
tong.n.li@...el.com, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@...oo.fr>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to CFS
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:09:26PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> It's not all that tricky.
Hmm ..the fact that each task runs for a minimum of 1 tick seems to
complicate the matters to me (when doing group fairness given a single
level hierarchy). A user with 1000 (or more) tasks can be unduly
advantaged compared to another user with just 1 (or fewer) task because of this?
> The ->fair_key computations are already
> parametrized on load weights. The "task weights" here are just what
> Linux calls "load weight," so we're largely done once task weights
> are calculated.
>
> The tricky part (if any) is essentially what you've already got nailed
> down, that is, creating and manipulating the accounting objects for the
> task groups or whatever you're calling them.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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