* Roman Zippel <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > If this basic model is correct, we can look further.
>
> The basic model is correct insofar I use an absolute time instead of a
> relative time, but it's not the essence of my math, so I don't quite
> understand the point of this exercise.
thanks. (and i did not claim nor do i want to claim this to be the
essence of your efforts - it is very clear from your mails where your
focus is.)
My next question then is about this code of yours in the wakeup path:
+static void
+enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
+{
+ kclock_t min_time;
+
+ verify_queue(cfs_rq, cfs_rq->curr != se, se);
+ min_time = get_time_avg(cfs_rq) - se->req_weight_inv;
+ if ((kclock_t)(se->time_norm - min_time) < 0)
+ se->time_norm = min_time;
why do you only use the "min_time" if the pre-sleep time_norm is smaller
than the min_time? Here 'min_time' is close to the current average.
Shouldnt here the woken up task be set to the average time, like i did
it in the crude prototype:
+ se->exec_runtime = avg_exec_runtime(cfs_rq);
(and lets again only consider the special case of only having nice-0
tasks.)
Or is it set in a similar way as my prototype does, and i missed some
detail why that branch is there?
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/
[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]
