Hello, Preeti.
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:18:32PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Joonsoo,
>
> On 04/04/2013 06:12 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > Hello, Preeti.
>
> >
> > So, how about extending a sched_period with rq->nr_running, instead of
> > cfs_rq->nr_running? It is my quick thought and I t
Hi Joonsoo,
On 04/04/2013 06:12 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> Hello, Preeti.
>
> So, how about extending a sched_period with rq->nr_running, instead of
> cfs_rq->nr_running? It is my quick thought and I think that we can ensure
> to run atleast once in this extending sched_period.
Yeah this seems to
Hello, Preeti.
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:02:43PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Joonsoo,
>
>
> >>> I think that it is real problem that sysctl_sched_min_granularity is not
> >>> guaranteed for each task.
> >>> Instead of this patch, how about considering low bound?
> >>>
> >>> if (slice < s
Hi Joonsoo,
>>> I think that it is real problem that sysctl_sched_min_granularity is not
>>> guaranteed for each task.
>>> Instead of this patch, how about considering low bound?
>>>
>>> if (slice < sysctl_sched_min_granularity)
>>> slice = sysctl_sched_min_granularity;
>>
>> Consider the bel
Hello, Mike.
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 04:35:26AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 11:25 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > Hello, Preeti.
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 12:36:52PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> > > Hi Joonsoo,
> > >
> > > On 04/01/2013 09:38 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrot
Hello, Preeti.
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:25:23AM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Joonsoo,
>
> On 04/02/2013 07:55 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > Hello, Preeti.
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 12:36:52PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> >> Hi Joonsoo,
> >>
> >> On 04/01/2013 09:38 AM, Joonsoo Kim
Hi Joonsoo,
On 04/02/2013 07:55 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> Hello, Preeti.
>
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 12:36:52PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> Hi Joonsoo,
>>
>> On 04/01/2013 09:38 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>>> Hello, Preeti.
>>>
>>
Ideally the children's cpu share must add upto the paren
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 11:25 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> Hello, Preeti.
>
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 12:36:52PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> > Hi Joonsoo,
> >
> > On 04/01/2013 09:38 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > Hello, Preeti.
> > >
> >
> > >>
> > >> Ideally the children's cpu share must add
Hello, Preeti.
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 12:36:52PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Joonsoo,
>
> On 04/01/2013 09:38 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > Hello, Preeti.
> >
>
> >>
> >> Ideally the children's cpu share must add upto the parent's share.
> >>
> >
> > I don't think so.
> >
> > We should s
Hi Joonsoo,
On 04/01/2013 09:38 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> Hello, Preeti.
>
>>
>> Ideally the children's cpu share must add upto the parent's share.
>>
>
> I don't think so.
>
> We should schedule out the parent tg if 5ms is over. As we do so, we can
> fairly distribute time slice to every tg wi
Hello, Preeti.
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:42:53PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Joonsoo,
>
> On 03/28/2013 01:28 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > Following-up upper se in sched_slice() should not be done,
> > because sched_slice() is used for checking that resched is needed
> > whithin *this* cfs_
Hi Joonsoo,
On 03/28/2013 01:28 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> Following-up upper se in sched_slice() should not be done,
> because sched_slice() is used for checking that resched is needed
> whithin *this* cfs_rq and there is one problem related to this
> in current implementation.
>
> The problem is
Following-up upper se in sched_slice() should not be done,
because sched_slice() is used for checking that resched is needed
whithin *this* cfs_rq and there is one problem related to this
in current implementation.
The problem is that if we follow-up upper se in sched_slice(), it is
possible that
13 matches
Mail list logo
