* Ting Yang <[email protected]> wrote:
>> then how much time is needed for "curr" to build a 2 * 32 difference
>> on fair_key, with every 1 ms it updates fair_key by 1/32 ? 2 * 32 *
>> 32 !
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:48:27PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> yes - but the "*32" impacts the rescheduling granularity, the "/32"
> impacts the speed of how the key moves. So the total execution speed of
> the nice -10 task is still "*32" of a nice 0 task - it's just that not
> only it gets 32 times more CPU time, it also gets it at 32 times larger
> chunks at once. But the rescheduling granularity does _not_ impact the
> CPU share the task gets, so there's no quadratic effect.
> but this is really simple to test: boot up CFS, start two infinite
> loops, one at nice 0 and one at nice +10 and look at it via "top" and
> type 's 60' in top to get a really long update interval for precise
> results. You wont see quadratically less CPU time used up by the nice
> +10 task, you'll see it getting the intended 1/32 share of CPU time.
Davide has code to test this more rigorously. Looks like I don't need
to do very much to get a nice test going at all, besides fiddling with
options parsing and maybe a few other things.
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]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]