Re: [PATCH] CFS: Fix missing digit off in wmult table

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



* Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:

> * James Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > While we're at it, isn't the comment above the wmult table incorrect? 
> > The multiplier is 1.25, meaning a 25% change per nice level, not 10%.
> 
> yes, the weight multiplier 1.25, but the actual difference in CPU 
> utilization, when running two CPU intense tasks, is ~10%:
> 
>   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
>  8246 mingo     20   0  1576  244  196 R   55  0.0   0:11.96 loop
>  8247 mingo     21   1  1576  244  196 R   45  0.0   0:10.52 loop
> 
> so the first task 'wins' +10% CPU utilization (relative to the 50% it 
> had before), the second task 'loses' -10% CPU utilization (relative to 
> the 50% it had before).
> 
> so what the comment says is true:
> 
>  * The "10% effect" is relative and cumulative: from _any_ nice level,
>  * if you go up 1 level, it's -10% CPU usage, if you go down 1 level
>  * it's +10% CPU usage.
> 
> for there to be a ~+10% change in CPU utilization for a task that 
> races against another CPU-intense task there needs to be a ~25% change 
> in the weight.

in any case more documentation is justified, so i've added some 
clarification to the comments - see the patch below.

	Ingo

------------------------>
Subject: sched: improve weight-array comments
From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

improve the comments around the wmult array (which controls the weight
of niced tasks). Clarify that to achieve a 10% difference in CPU
utilization, a weight multiplier of 1.25 has to be used.

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
---
 kernel/sched.c |    4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Index: linux/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux/kernel/sched.c
@@ -736,7 +736,9 @@ static void update_curr_load(struct rq *
  *
  * The "10% effect" is relative and cumulative: from _any_ nice level,
  * if you go up 1 level, it's -10% CPU usage, if you go down 1 level
- * it's +10% CPU usage.
+ * it's +10% CPU usage. (to achieve that we use a multiplier of 1.25.
+ * If a task goes up by ~10% and another task goes down by ~10% then
+ * the relative distance between them is ~25%.)
  */
 static const int prio_to_weight[40] = {
 /* -20 */ 88818, 71054, 56843, 45475, 36380, 29104, 23283, 18626, 14901, 11921,
-
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]
  Powered by Linux