On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:15:34AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Yes, the larger number of schedulable entities and hence slower
> convergence to groupwise weightings is a disadvantage of the flattening.
> A hybrid scheme seems reasonable enough.
Cool! This puts me back on track to implement hierarchical scheduling in
CFS :)
Once this is done and once I can get containers running on a box, I will
experiment with the flattening trick for user and process levels inside
containers.
Thanks for your feedback so far!
> Ideally one would chop the
> hierarchy in pieces so that n levels of hierarchy become k levels of n/k
> weight-flattened hierarchies for this sort of attack to be most effective
> (at least assuming similar branching factors at all levels of hierarchy
> and sufficient depth to the hierarchy to make it meaningful) but this is
> awkward to do. Peeling off the outermost container or whichever level is
> deemed most important in terms of accuracy of aggregate enforcement as
> a hierarchical scheduler is a practical compromise.
>
> Hybrid schemes will still incur the difficulties of hierarchical
> scheduling, but they're by no means insurmountable. Sadly, only
> complete flattening yields the simplifications that make task group
> weighting enforcement orthogonal to load balancing and the like. The
> scheme I described for global nice number behavior is also not readily
> adaptable to hybrid schemes.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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]
