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.
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 04:52:59PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > [snip] On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 04:05:00AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Basically it needs to move closer to EEVDF in these respects. On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 04:52:59PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > Doesn't EEVDF have the same issue? From the paper: > V(t) = 1/(w1 + w2 + ...wn) Who knows what I was smoking, then. I misremembered the scale factor as being on the other side of comparisons with the queue's clock. I'm suspicious of EEVDF's timekeeping now as well. -- wli - 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/