[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709032140140.1817@scrub.home>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 21:55:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE/RFC] Really Simple Really Fair Scheduler
Hi,
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> My next question then is about this code of yours in the wakeup path:
>
> +static void
> +enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> +{
> + kclock_t min_time;
> +
> + verify_queue(cfs_rq, cfs_rq->curr != se, se);
> + min_time = get_time_avg(cfs_rq) - se->req_weight_inv;
> + if ((kclock_t)(se->time_norm - min_time) < 0)
> + se->time_norm = min_time;
>
> why do you only use the "min_time" if the pre-sleep time_norm is smaller
> than the min_time? Here 'min_time' is close to the current average.
It's a variation of the sleeper bonus. Let's assume two running tasks
which have been running for 95ms and 105ms and a time slice of 10ms, the
average is thus 100ms. If the new task has been sleeping for a while it
starts at 90ms, if the task had been running lately it doesn't get this
bonus again.
> Shouldnt here the woken up task be set to the average time, like i did
> it in the crude prototype:
>
> + se->exec_runtime = avg_exec_runtime(cfs_rq);
That would be equivalent to simply clearing wait_runtime in CFS.
bye, Roman
-
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