Re: [git] CFS-devel, group scheduler, fixes

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

 

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:


On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:22:14 +0200 Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> wrote:


On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 12:42 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:

On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 12:24 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:


how about something like:

 s64 delta = (s64)(vruntime - min_vruntime);
 if (delta > 0)
  min_vruntime += delta;

That would rid us of most of the funny conditionals there.


That still left me with negative min_vruntimes.  The pinned hogs didn't
lock my box up, but I quickly got the below, so hastily killed it.


Shouldn't the max() in place_entity() be the max_vruntime() that my
lysdexia told me it was when I looked at it earlier? ;-)



probably, my tree doesn't have that max anymore so I'm not sure.
Last time I looked, I thought the max() in place_entity() was fine and the problem seemed to be in set_task_cpu() that was causing the negative vruntimes: 

        if (likely(new_rq->cfs.min_vruntime))
                p->se.vruntime -= old_rq->cfs.min_vruntime -
                                                new_rq->cfs.min_vruntime;
I think it's fine we get rid of sync_vruntime(). I need to think more about how to make global fairness work based on this--it seems to be more complicated than if we had sync_vruntime(). 

  tong
-
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