On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:10:47PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
> Getting credit is indeed not really that important to me, but apparently
> some lousy credit notes is the only way to get any kind of
> acknowledgement.
Acknowledgement has always been one of the kernel's weaknesses it seems,
Hi,
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > There is actually a very simple reason for that, the actual patch is
> > not my primary focus,
>
>
> for someone who's not focused on patches/code, you make quite a bit of
> noise when someone does turn your discussion into smaller patches
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:50:22 +0200 (CEST)
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > > This is ridiculous, I asked you multiple times to explain to me
> > > some of the differences relative to CFS as response to the splitup
> > > requests
Hi,
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > This is ridiculous, I asked you multiple times to explain to me some
> > of the differences relative to CFS as response to the splitup
> > requests. Not once did you react, you didn't even ask what I'd like
> > to know specifically.
>
> Roman,
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:50:12 +0200 (CEST)
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You never directly replied to these pretty explicit requests, all
> > you did was this side remark 5 days later in one of your patch
> > announcements:
>
> This is ridiculous, I asked you multiple times to expla
Hi,
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Aug 10th, I was disappointed to see that you still had not provided
> the critical information that Ingo had been asking to you for 9 days
> (cfs-sched-debug output). Your motivations in this work started to
> become a bit fuzzy to me, since peop
Hi,
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> I have read the announcement from Ingo and after reading it I concluded
> that it was good to see that Ingo had taken in consideration the feedback
> from you and improved the schduler based on this.
> And when I read that he removed a lot of stuff I
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 14:04 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> AFAICT the compensation part is already done by the scaling part, without
> the load part it largely mirrors what __update_stats_wait_end() does, i.e.
> it gets the same time as other tasks, which have been on the rq.
All it tried to do w
Hi,
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 18:50 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
>
> > I never claimed to understand every detail of CFS, I can _guess_ what
> > _might_ have been intended, but from that it's impossible to know for
> > certain how important they are. Let'
Hi,
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > The rest of the math is indeed different - it's simply missing. What
> > is there is IMO not really adequate. I guess you will see the
> > differences, once you test a bit more with different nice levels.
>
> Roman, i disagree strongly. I did tes
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 14:44 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > If you look at the math, you'll see that I took the overflow into account,
> > I even expected it. If you see this effect in my implementation, it would
> > be a bug.
>
> Ah, ok, I shall look to your patches in more detail, it was not
* dimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and here's something a bit more intrusive.
>
> The initial idea was to completely get rid of 'se->fair_key'. It's
> always equal to 'se->vruntime' for all runnable tasks but the
> 'current'. The exact key within the tree for the 'current' has to be
> known
* dimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Better placement of #ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTAT block in dequeue_entity().
thanks, applied.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.ke
* dimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> unless we are very eager to keep an additional layer of abstraction,
> 'struct load_stat' is redundant now so let's get rid of it.
yeah - good one, it's indeed redundant. Applied.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux
On Sep 13, 2007, at 21:47:25, Rob Hussey wrote:
On 9/13/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
are you sure this is happening with the latest iteration of the
patch too? (with the combo-3.patch?) You can pick it up from here:
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/devel/sched-cfs
On 9/13/07, Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bound to single core:
...
> hackbench 50
> # rc1 rc6 cfs-devel
> 1 7.528 7.950 7.538
> 2 7.649 8.026 7.548
> 3 7.613 8.160 7.580
> 4 7.550 8.054 7.558
> 5 7.563 8.373 7.559
> 6 7.617 8.152 7.550
> 7 7.593 7.831 7.562
> 8 7.602 8.311 7
and here's something a bit more intrusive.
The initial idea was to completely get rid of 'se->fair_key'. It's always equal
to 'se->vruntime' for
all runnable tasks but the 'current'. The exact key within the tree for the
'current' has to be known in
order for __enqueue_entity() to work properly
Roman,
I've been trying to follow your mails about CFS since your review posted
on Aug 1st. Back to that date, I was thinking "cool, an in-depth review
by someone who understands schedulers and mathematics very well, we'll
quickly have a very solid design".
On Aug 10th, I was disappointed to see
Hi,
please find a couple of minor cleanups below (on top of
sched-cfs-v2.6.23-rc6-v21-combo-3.patch):
(1)
Better placement of #ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTAT block in dequeue_entity().
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff -upr linux-2.6.23-rc6/kernel/sched_fair.c
linux-2.6.
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 14:28 -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> with the exception of one patch that's missing a changelog entry.
Ah, that would have been one of mine.
---
From: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Handle vruntime overflow by centering the key space around min_vruntime.
Signed-off-by:
Hi Roman.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 02:35:35PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > > Out of curiousity: will I ever get answers to my questions?
> >
> > the last few weeks/months have been pretty hectic - i get more than 50
> > non-list emails a day
On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:50:12, Roman Zippel wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
And you are duly credited in 3 patches:
This needs a little perspective, as I couldn't clone the repository
(and you know that), all I had was this announcement, so using the
patch descriptions now as
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 19:06 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 18:50 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
>
> > I never claimed to understand every detail of CFS, I can _guess_ what
> > _might_ have been intended, but from that it's impossible to know for
> > certain how important they a
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 18:50 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> I never claimed to understand every detail of CFS, I can _guess_ what
> _might_ have been intended, but from that it's impossible to know for
> certain how important they are. Let's take this patch fragment:
>
delta_fair = se->de
Hi,
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Then you had the time to reimplement the very things you've just asked
> > me about and what do I get credit for - "two cleanups from RFS".
>
> i'm sorry to say this, but you must be reading some other email list and
> a different git tree than w
* Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then you had the time to reimplement the very things you've just asked
> me about and what do I get credit for - "two cleanups from RFS".
i'm sorry to say this, but you must be reading some other email list and
a different git tree than what i am rea
* Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rest of the math is indeed different - it's simply missing. What
> is there is IMO not really adequate. I guess you will see the
> differences, once you test a bit more with different nice levels.
Roman, i disagree strongly. I did test with diffe
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 14:14 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > There's a good reason
> > > I put that much effort into maintaining a good, but still cheap average,
> > > it's needed for a good task placement.
> >
> > While I agree that havi
Hi,
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Out of curiousity: will I ever get answers to my questions?
>
> the last few weeks/months have been pretty hectic - i get more than 50
> non-list emails a day so i could easily have missed some.
Well, let's just take the recent "Really Simple Rea
Hi,
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > There's a good reason
> > I put that much effort into maintaining a good, but still cheap average,
> > it's needed for a good task placement.
>
> While I agree that having this average is nice, your particular
> implementation has the problem
* Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I was going over my config myself after you asked for me to post
> it, and I thought to do the same thing. Except, disabling sched_debug
> caused the same error as before:
> In file included from kernel/sched.c:794:
> kernel/sched_fair.c: In functio
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 00:17 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> The rest of the math is indeed different - it's simply missing. What is
> there is IMO not really adequate. I guess you will see the differences,
> once you test a bit more with different nice levels.
The rounding error we now still have
On 9/13/07, Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/13/07, Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/13/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > * Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 9/13/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > thank
On 9/13/07, Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/13/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > * Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 9/13/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > thanks for the numbers! Could you please also post the .config you used
On 9/13/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 9/13/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > thanks for the numbers! Could you please also post the .config you used?
> >
> > Sure, .config for 2.6.23-rc1 and 2.6.23-rc6 attached.
* Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/13/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > thanks for the numbers! Could you please also post the .config you used?
>
> Sure, .config for 2.6.23-rc1 and 2.6.23-rc6 attached.
thx! If you've got some time, could you perhaps re-measure with
* Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The sched-devel.git tree can be pulled from:
> >
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mingo/linux-2.6-sched-devel.git
>
> Am I the only one who can't clone that thing? [...]
Ah - i have messed up my sched-devel.git script so th
* Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/11/07, Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > When compiling, I get:
>
> Yeah, this was my fault :(
>
> I've had a chance to test this now, and everything feels great. I did
> some benchmarks for 2.6.23-rc1, 2.6.23-rc6-cfs, and
On 9/11/07, Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> When compiling, I get:
Yeah, this was my fault :(
I've had a chance to test this now, and everything feels great. I did
some benchmarks for 2.6.23-rc1, 2.6.23-rc6-cfs, and
2.6.23-rc6-cfs-devel:
lat_ctx -s 0 2:
2.6.23-rc1 2.6.23
* Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Out of curiousity: will I ever get answers to my questions?
the last few weeks/months have been pretty hectic - i get more than 50
non-list emails a day so i could easily have missed some. (and to take a
line from Linus: my attention span is
Please ignore the previous mail, i messed it up bad.
On 9/12/07, Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > fresh back from the Kernel Summit, Peter Zijlstra and me are pleased to
> > announce the latest iteration of the CFS scheduler developmen
-- Forwarded message --
From: Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sep 12, 2007 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: [announce] CFS-devel, performance improvements
To: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike
Hi,
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> fresh back from the Kernel Summit, Peter Zijlstra and me are pleased to
> announce the latest iteration of the CFS scheduler development tree. Our
> main focus has been on simplifications and performance - and as part of
> that we've also picked up
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 22:04 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> fresh back from the Kernel Summit, Peter Zijlstra and me are pleased to
> announce the latest iteration of the CFS scheduler development tree. Our
> main focus has been on simplifications and performance - and as part of
> that we've also p
Hi Ingo,
When compiling, I get:
In file included from kernel/sched.c:794:
kernel/sched_fair.c: In function 'task_new_fair':
kernel/sched_fair.c:857: error: 'sysctl_sched_child_runs_first'
undeclared (first use in this function)
kernel/sched_fair.c:857: error: (Each undeclared identifier is
reporte
Hi,
Hi,
Out of curiousity: will I ever get answers to my questions?
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http:/
fresh back from the Kernel Summit, Peter Zijlstra and me are pleased to
announce the latest iteration of the CFS scheduler development tree. Our
main focus has been on simplifications and performance - and as part of
that we've also picked up some ideas from Roman Zippel's 'Really Fair
Schedul
47 matches
Mail list logo
