Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v5

* Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:

> > yeah - but they'll all be quad core, so the SMP timeslice 
> > multiplicator should do the trick. Most of the CFS testers use 
> > single-CPU systems.
> 
> But desktop users could have have quad thread and even 8 thread CPUs 
> soon, [...]

SMT is indeed an issue, so i think what should be used to scale 
timeslices isnt num_online_cpus(), but the sum of all CPU's ->cpu_power 
value (scaled down by SCHED_LOAD_SCALE). That way if the thread is not a 
'full CPU', then the scaling will be proportionally smaller. Can you see 
any hole in that?

	Ingo
-
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/

---

• References:
  • [patch] CFS scheduler, v4
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • [patch] CFS scheduler, -v5
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v5
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v5
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v5
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v5
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v5
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] lazy freeing of memory through MADV_FREE
• Next by Date: crash with CFS v4 and qemu/kvm (was: [patch] CFS scheduler, v4)
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v5
• Next by thread: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v5 (build problem - make headers_check fails)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]