-- Forwarded message --
From: Chetan Nanda
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: picking next running process in CFS scheduler
To: Mulyadi Santosa
Cc: Kernelnewbies
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Mulyadi Santosa
wrote:
>
> Hi Cheetan...
>
> Thanks f
...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> I've tried to check related scheduler code and I've got impression
> >> that in CFS scheduler, dynamic priority level no longer determines
> >> which process will be picked up by the sche
Hi Cheetan...
Thanks for your fast reply...
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Chetan Nanda wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Mulyadi Santosa
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I've tried to check related scheduler code and I've got impression
&g
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Mulyadi Santosa
wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I've tried to check related scheduler code and I've got impression
> that in CFS scheduler, dynamic priority level no longer determines
> which process will be picked up by the scheduler. Instead, it
Hi all
I've tried to check related scheduler code and I've got impression
that in CFS scheduler, dynamic priority level no longer determines
which process will be picked up by the scheduler. Instead, it is now
the waiting time that becomes the primary factor to watch...the longer
it w
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 12:29 +0530, Sukanto Ghosh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What was the reason for changing the CFS mechanism from
> fair_clock/wait_runtime to vruntime?
Numerical integrety mostly.
> What were the kind of workloads where the fairclock approach faired badly ?
They are analytically identi
Hi,
What was the reason for changing the CFS mechanism from
fair_clock/wait_runtime to vruntime?
What were the kind of workloads where the fairclock approach faired badly ?
Also, when adding a blocked task to the runqueue (rbtree), why is it's
vruntime set to less than min_vruntime ?
This means
