Hi,
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 18:50 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
>
> > I never claimed to understand every detail of CFS, I can _guess_ what
> > _might_ have been intended, but from that it's impossible to know for
> > certain how important they are. Let's take this patch fragment:
> >
>
> delta_fair = se->delta_fair_sleep;
>
> we slept that much
>
> > - /*
> > - * Fix up delta_fair with the effect of us running
> > - * during the whole sleep period:
> > - */
> > - if (sched_feat(SLEEPER_AVG))
> > - delta_fair = div64_likely32((u64)delta_fair * load,
> > - load + se->load.weight);
>
> if we would have ran we would not have been removed from the rq and the
> weight would have been: rq_weight + weight
>
> so compensate for us having been removed from the rq by scaling the
> delta with: rq_weight/(rq_weight + weight)
>
> > - delta_fair = calc_weighted(delta_fair, se);
>
> scale for nice levels
AFAICT the compensation part is already done by the scaling part, without
the load part it largely mirrors what __update_stats_wait_end() does, i.e.
it gets the same time as other tasks, which have been on the rq.
bye, Roman
-
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]
