On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 04:05:00AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > The variability in ->fair_clock advancement rate was the mistake, at > least according to my way of thinking. The queue's virtual time clock > effectively stops under sufficiently high load, possibly literally in > the event of fixpoint underflow.
[snip] > Basically it needs to move closer to EEVDF in these respects. Doesn't EEVDF have the same issue? From the paper: V(t) = 1/(w1 + w2 + ...wn) -- 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/