On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:23:42AM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 09:01:55AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >>On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 11:26:21PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 11:09:55PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >>>>>All things are not equal; they all have different properties. I like
> >>>On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 08:15:03AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >>>>Exactly. So we have to explore those properties and evaluate performance
> >>>>(in all meanings of the word). That's only logical.
> >>>Any chance you'd be willing to put down a few thoughts on what sorts
> >>>of standards you'd like to set for both correctness (i.e. the bare
> >>>minimum a scheduler implementation must do to be considered valid
> >>>beyond not oopsing) and performance metrics (i.e. things that produce
> >>>numbers for each scheduler you can compare to say "this scheduler is
> >>>better than this other scheduler at this.").
> >>Yeah I guess that's the hard part :)
> >>
> >>For correctness, I guess fairness is an easy one. I think that unfairness
> >>is basically a bug and that it would be very unfortunate to merge
> >>something
> >>unfair. But this is just within the context of a single runqueue... for
> >>better or worse, we allow some unfairness in multiprocessors for
> >>performance
> >>reasons of course.
> >
> >I'm a big fan of fairness, but I think it's a bit early to declare it
> >a mandatory feature. Bounded unfairness is probably something we can
> >agree on, ie "if we decide to be unfair, no process suffers more than
> >a factor of x".
> >
> >>Latency. Given N tasks in the system, an arbitrary task should get
> >>onto the CPU in a bounded amount of time (excluding events like freak
> >>IRQ holdoffs and such, obviously -- ie. just considering the context
> >>of the scheduler's state machine).
> >
> >This is a slightly stronger statement than starvation-free (which is
> >obviously mandatory). I think you're looking for something like
> >"worst-case scheduling latency is proportional to the number of
> >runnable tasks".
>
> add "taking into consideration nice and/or real time priorities of
> runnable tasks". I.e. if a task is nice 19 it can expect to wait longer
> to get onto the CPU than if it was nice 0.
Yes. Assuming we meet the "bounded unfairness" criterion above, this
follows.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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]
