[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46AA287D.8070200@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:16:45 -0400
From: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To: Tong Li <tong.n.li@...el.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] scheduler: improve SMP fairness in CFS
Tong Li wrote:
> I'd like to clarify that I'm not trying to push this particular code to
> the kernel. I'm a researcher. My intent was to point out that we have a
> problem in the scheduler and my dwrr algorithm can potentially help fix
> it. The patch itself was merely a proof-of-concept. I'd be thrilled if
> the algorithm can be proven useful in the real world. I appreciate the
> people who have given me comments. Since then, I've revised my
> algorithm/code. Now it doesn't require global locking but retains strong
> fairness properties (which I was able to prove mathematically).
Thanks for doing this work. Please don't take the implementation criticism as a
lack of appreciation for the work. I'd like to see dwrr in the scheduler, but
I'm skeptical that re-introducing expired runqueues is the most efficient way to
do it.
Given the inherently controversial nature of scheduler code, particularly that
which attempts to enforce fairness, perhaps a concise design document would help
us come to an agreement about what we think the scheduler should do and what
tradeoffs we're willing to make to do those things. Do you have a design
document we could discuss?
-- Chris
-
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