William Lee Irwin III wrote:
The sorts of like explicit decisions I'd like to be made for these are: (1) In a mixture of tasks with varying nice numbers, a given nice number corresponds to some share of CPU bandwidth. Implementations should not have the freedom to change this arbitrarily according to some intention.
The first question that comes to my mind is whether nice levels should be linear or not. I would lean towards nonlinear as it allows a wider range (although of course at the expense of precision). Maybe something like "each nice level gives X times the cpu of the previous"? I think a value of X somewhere between 1.15 and 1.25 might be reasonable.
What about also having something that looks at latency, and how latency changes with niceness?
What about specifying the timeframe over which the cpu bandwidth is measured? I currently have a system where the application designers would like it to be totally fair over a period of 1 second. As you can imagine, mainline doesn't do very well in this case.
Chris - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: James Bruce <[email protected]>
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: William Lee Irwin III <[email protected]>
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- References:
- [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: Bill Huey (hui) <[email protected]>
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: Bill Huey (hui) <[email protected]>
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: "Pekka Enberg" <[email protected]>
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: William Lee Irwin III <[email protected]>
- [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- Prev by Date: Re: [GIT PATCHES] V4L/DVB updates
- Next by Date: Re: [patch 0/8] unprivileged mount syscall
- Previous by thread: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- Next by thread: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- Index(es):
 |