Re: [patch] CFS (Completely Fair Scheduler), v2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ingo Molnar wrote:
* William Lee Irwin III <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:46:57PM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:

Have you considered using rq->raw_weighted_load instead of rq->nr_running in calculating fair_clock? This would take the nice value (or RT priority) of the other tasks into account when determining what's fair.
I suspect you mean (curr->load_weight*delta_exec)/rq->raw_weighted_load in update_curr().
good idea, i'll try that.
In the longer term, I'd suggest modifying this idea to use the maximum 
of rq->raw_weighted_load and a running average of rq->raw_weighted_load 
much the same as was done within the load balancer code.  This will tend 
to make scheduling "smoother".  To try the idea out you could (on an SMP 
system) use one of the rq->cpu_load[] metrics as the running average.
Peter
--
Peter Williams                                   [email protected]

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
 -- Ambrose Bierce
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux