Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44

[Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>]

On Apr 21, 2007, at 12:42:41, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > If you remember, with 50/50, I noticed some difficulties to fork  
> > > many processes. I think that during a fork(), the parent has a  
> > > higher probability of forking other processes than the child. So  
> > > at least, we should use something like 67/33 or 75/25 for parent/ 
> > > child.
>
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 09:34:07AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > It would be even better to simply have the rule:
> >  - child gets almost no points at startup
> >  - but when a parent does a "waitpid()" call and blocks, it will  
> > spread  out its points to the childred (the "vfork()" blocking is  
> > another case that is really the same).
> > This is a very special kind of "priority inversion" logic: you  
> > give higher priority to the things you wait for. Not because of  
> > holding any locks, but simply because a blockign waitpid really is  
> > a damn big hint that "ok, the child now works for the parent".
>
> An in-kernel scheduler API might help. void yield_to(struct  
> task_struct *)?
>
> A userspace API might be nice, too. e.g. int sched_yield_to(pid_t).

It might be nice if it was possible to actively contribute your CPU  
time to a child process.  For example:
int sched_donate(pid_t pid, struct timeval *time, int percentage);

Maybe a way to pass CPU time over a UNIX socket (analogous to  
SCM_RIGHTS), along with information on what process/user passed it   
That would make it possible to really fix X properly on a local  
system.  You could make the X client library pass CPU time to the X  
server whenever it requests a CPU-intensive rendering operation.   
Ordinarily X would nice all of its client service threads to +10, but  
when a client passes CPU time to its thread over the socket, then its  
service thread temporarily gets the scheduling properties of the  
client.  I'm not a scheduler guru, but that's what makes the most  
sense from an application-programmer point of view.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/