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
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
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 be
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 think that we
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 <
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
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
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
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
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 wrote:
Hello,
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 wrote:
Hello,
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 below scenario.
A
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
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
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
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 within short
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 schedule out the parent
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 upto the parent's share.
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 parent's share.
I don't
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*
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_rq and
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
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 that
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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
