Hi,
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> and what about the mirror image problem?
Sorry, I'm not familiar with that in a scheduler context.
> Your math assumes that tasks
> use up their full timeslices, somewhere starting at (12):
>
> | (12)time_norm_app = sum_{t}^{T}(time_norm_{t} *
* Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It's a variation of the sleeper bonus. [...]
> >
> > hm, where are its effects described in your explanation? Seems like a
> > key item.
>
> It has no direct effect on the correctness of the mathematical model,
> the time is initialized before
* Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a variation of the sleeper bonus. [...]
hm, where are its effects described in your explanation? Seems like a
key item.
It has no direct effect on the correctness of the mathematical model,
the time is initialized before the time is
Hi,
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
and what about the mirror image problem?
Sorry, I'm not familiar with that in a scheduler context.
Your math assumes that tasks
use up their full timeslices, somewhere starting at (12):
| (12)time_norm_app = sum_{t}^{T}(time_norm_{t} *
Hi,
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > It's a variation of the sleeper bonus. [...]
>
> hm, where are its effects described in your explanation? Seems like a
> key item.
It has no direct effect on the correctness of the mathematical model, the
time is initialized before the time is
* Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > My next question then is about this code of yours in the wakeup path:
> >
> > +static void
> > +enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> > +{
> > + kclock_t
Hi,
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> My next question then is about this code of yours in the wakeup path:
>
> +static void
> +enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> +{
> + kclock_t min_time;
> +
> + verify_queue(cfs_rq, cfs_rq->curr != se,
* Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > If this basic model is correct, we can look further.
>
> The basic model is correct insofar I use an absolute time instead of a
> relative time, but it's not the essence of my math, so I don't quite
>
Hi,
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> If this basic model is correct, we can look further.
The basic model is correct insofar I use an absolute time instead of a
relative time, but it's not the essence of my math, so I don't quite
understand the point of this exercise.
bye, Roman
-
To
* Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > Roman, as an addendum to my review, please find below a prototype patch
> > i've just written that implements RSRFS (Really Simple Really Fair
> > Scheduler) ontop of CFS. It is intended to
Hi,
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Roman, as an addendum to my review, please find below a prototype patch
> i've just written that implements RSRFS (Really Simple Really Fair
> Scheduler) ontop of CFS. It is intended to demonstrate the essence of
> the math you have presented via
Hi,
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Roman, as an addendum to my review, please find below a prototype patch
i've just written that implements RSRFS (Really Simple Really Fair
Scheduler) ontop of CFS. It is intended to demonstrate the essence of
the math you have presented via your
* Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Roman, as an addendum to my review, please find below a prototype patch
i've just written that implements RSRFS (Really Simple Really Fair
Scheduler) ontop of CFS. It is intended to demonstrate the
Hi,
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
If this basic model is correct, we can look further.
The basic model is correct insofar I use an absolute time instead of a
relative time, but it's not the essence of my math, so I don't quite
understand the point of this exercise.
bye, Roman
-
To
* Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
If this basic model is correct, we can look further.
The basic model is correct insofar I use an absolute time instead of a
relative time, but it's not the essence of my math, so I don't quite
understand
Hi,
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
My next question then is about this code of yours in the wakeup path:
+static void
+enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
+{
+ kclock_t min_time;
+
+ verify_queue(cfs_rq, cfs_rq-curr != se, se);
+
* Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
My next question then is about this code of yours in the wakeup path:
+static void
+enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
+{
+ kclock_t min_time;
+
+
Hi,
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
It's a variation of the sleeper bonus. [...]
hm, where are its effects described in your explanation? Seems like a
key item.
It has no direct effect on the correctness of the mathematical model, the
time is initialized before the time is added
* Tong Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like this patch since it's really simple. CFS does provide a nice
> infrastructure to enable new algorithmic changes/extensions. My only
> concern was the O(log N) complexity under heavy load, but I'm willing
> to agree that it's OK in the common case.
I like this patch since it's really simple. CFS does provide a nice
infrastructure to enable new algorithmic changes/extensions. My only
concern was the O(log N) complexity under heavy load, but I'm willing to
agree that it's OK in the common case. Some comments on the code:
* Ingo Molnar
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your math is fairly simple (and that is _good_, just like CFS's
> existing math is simple), it can be summed up in essence as (without
> complicating it with nice-level weighting, for easy
> understandability):
>
> " use the already existing
I like this patch since it's really simple. CFS does provide a nice
infrastructure to enable new algorithmic changes/extensions. My only
concern was the O(log N) complexity under heavy load, but I'm willing to
agree that it's OK in the common case. Some comments on the code:
* Ingo Molnar
* Tong Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like this patch since it's really simple. CFS does provide a nice
infrastructure to enable new algorithmic changes/extensions. My only
concern was the O(log N) complexity under heavy load, but I'm willing
to agree that it's OK in the common case. [...]
23 matches
Mail list logo
