On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:46:13PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > i'd still like to hear back from Kirill & co whether this framework is
> > flexible enough for their work (OpenVZ, etc.) too.
>
> My IMHO is that so far the proposed group scheduler doesn't look
>
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i'd still like to hear back from Kirill & co whether this framework is
> flexible enough for their work (OpenVZ, etc.) too.
My IMHO is that so far the proposed group scheduler doesn't look ready/suitable.
We need to have a working SMP version before it will be clear
whether
Ingo Molnar wrote:
i'd still like to hear back from Kirill co whether this framework is
flexible enough for their work (OpenVZ, etc.) too.
My IMHO is that so far the proposed group scheduler doesn't look ready/suitable.
We need to have a working SMP version before it will be clear
whether
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:46:13PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
i'd still like to hear back from Kirill co whether this framework is
flexible enough for their work (OpenVZ, etc.) too.
My IMHO is that so far the proposed group scheduler doesn't look
ready/suitable.
[ resending ..my earlier reply doesn't seem to have made it to lkml ]
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:26:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > So where's this precise stats based calculation of cpu_load?
>
> but there's a change in the interpretation of bit 6:
>
> - if (!(sysctl_sched_features &
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 09:39:31PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > i mean bit 6, value 64. I flipped around its meaning in -v17-rc4, so the
> > new precise stats code there is now default-enabled - making SMP
> > load-balancing more accurate.
>
>
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 09:39:31PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
i mean bit 6, value 64. I flipped around its meaning in -v17-rc4, so the
new precise stats code there is now default-enabled - making SMP
load-balancing more accurate.
I must be
[ resending ..my earlier reply doesn't seem to have made it to lkml ]
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:26:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
So where's this precise stats based calculation of cpu_load?
but there's a change in the interpretation of bit 6:
- if (!(sysctl_sched_features 64)) {
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 09:37:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Patches 1-3 introduce the essential changes in CFS core to support
> > this concept. They rework existing code w/o any (intended!) change in
> > functionality.
>
> i currently have these 3 patches applied to the CFS queue and it's
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Patch 4 fixes some bad interaction between SCHED_RT and SCHED_NORMAL
> > tasks in current CFS.
>
> btw., the plan here is to turn off 'bit 0' in sched_features: i.e. to
> use the precise statistics to calculate lrq->cpu_load[], not the
>
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo,
> Here's an update of the group fairness patch I have been
> working on. Its against CFS v16 (sched-cfs-v2.6.22-rc4-mm2-v16.patch).
thanks!
> The core idea is to reuse much of CFS logic to apply fairness at
> higher hierarchical
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 09:17:24PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> TODO:
>
> - Weighted fair-share support
> Currently each group gets "equal" share. Support
> weighted fair-share so that some groups deemed important
> get more than this "equal"
Ingo,
Here's an update of the group fairness patch I have been working
on. Its against CFS v16 (sched-cfs-v2.6.22-rc4-mm2-v16.patch).
The core idea is to reuse much of CFS logic to apply fairness at higher
hierarchical levels (user, container etc). In this regard CFS engine has been
Ingo,
Here's an update of the group fairness patch I have been working
on. Its against CFS v16 (sched-cfs-v2.6.22-rc4-mm2-v16.patch).
The core idea is to reuse much of CFS logic to apply fairness at higher
hierarchical levels (user, container etc). In this regard CFS engine has been
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 09:17:24PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
TODO:
- Weighted fair-share support
Currently each group gets equal share. Support
weighted fair-share so that some groups deemed important
get more than this equal share. I
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo,
Here's an update of the group fairness patch I have been
working on. Its against CFS v16 (sched-cfs-v2.6.22-rc4-mm2-v16.patch).
thanks!
The core idea is to reuse much of CFS logic to apply fairness at
higher hierarchical levels
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patch 4 fixes some bad interaction between SCHED_RT and SCHED_NORMAL
tasks in current CFS.
btw., the plan here is to turn off 'bit 0' in sched_features: i.e. to
use the precise statistics to calculate lrq-cpu_load[], not the
timer-irq-sampled
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 09:37:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Patches 1-3 introduce the essential changes in CFS core to support
this concept. They rework existing code w/o any (intended!) change in
functionality.
i currently have these 3 patches applied to the CFS queue and it's
18 matches
Mail list logo
