[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080523101951.GL3780@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 15:49:51 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: "Li, Tong N" <tong.n.li@...el.com>,
Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, pj@....com
Subject: Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:39:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 15:12 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 01:18:33PM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote:
> > > Peter,
> > >
> > > I didn't look at your patches, but I thought you were flattening group
> > > weights down to task-level so that the scheduler only looks at per-task
> > > weights.
> >
> > Wouldnt that require task weight readjustment upon every fork/exit?
>
> If you were to do that - yes that would get you into some very serious
> trouble.
>
> The route I've chosen is to basically recompute it every time I need the
> weight. So every time I use a weight, I do:
and which are those points when "you need the weight"?
Basically here's what I had in mind:
Group A shares = 1024
# of tasks in group A = 1 (T0)
So T0 weight can be 1024.
T0 now forks 1000 children. Ideally now,
T0.weight = T1.weight = .... = T999.weight = 1024/1000
If we don't change each task's weight like this, then group A will
cumulatively get more share than it deserves.
Are you saying you will change each task's weight lazily? If so how?
--
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