[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <465FC7E7.7080804@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:16:55 +0800
From: Li Yu <raise.sail@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v14
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Li Yu <raise.sail@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>> static void distribute_fair_add(struct rq *rq, s64 delta)
>> {
>> struct task_struct *curr = rq->curr;
>> s64 delta_fair = 0;
>>
>> if (!(sysctl_sched_load_smoothing & 32))
>> return;
>>
>> if (rq->nr_running) {
>> delta_fair = div64_s(delta, rq->nr_running);
>> /*
>> * The currently running task's next wait_runtime value does
>> * not depend on the fair_clock, so fix it up explicitly:
>> */
>> add_wait_runtime(rq, curr, -delta_fair);
>> rq->fair_clock -= delta_fair;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> See this line:
>>
>> delta_fair = div64_s(delta, rq->nr_running);
>>
>> Ingo, should we be replace "rq->nr_running" with "rq->raw_load_weight"
>> here?
>>
>
> that would break the code. The handling of sleep periods is basically
> heuristics and using nr_running here appears to be 'good enough' in
> practice.
>
>
Thanks, I am wrong at seeing the delta variable is represented by
virtual time unit. if the code does as I said, the delta_fair may be too
small to meanless.
Also, I have want to know what's real meaning of
add_wait_runtime(rq, curr, delta_mine - delta_exec);
in update_curr(), IMHO, it should be
add_wait_runtime(rq, curr, delta_mine - delta_fair);
Is this just another heuristics? or my opinion is wrong again? :-)
Good luck.
- Li Yu
-
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