Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v15

2007-06-14 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 05:07:33PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > I don't think that rt_sched_class :: dequeue_task_rt() is in any of > > such "fast pathes" that we should really care about an additional > > math. operation. > > > > If this approach is ok, logically-wise (no side effects fro

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v15

2007-06-06 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 05:07:33PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > No, fair_sched_class :: put_prev_task() if we are transitioning from > NORMAL->RT. That will update the fair_clock based on execution time > of current task in fair_sched class? On seconds thoughts, this may not be necessary as

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v15

2007-06-06 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 01:19:01PM +0200, Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > >Yes this is the approach I prefer, because we burden the fast/normal > >path less that way (RT->NORMAL transition is not common). > > I don't think that rt_sched_class :: dequeue_task_rt() is in any of > such "fast pathes" that w

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v15

2007-06-06 Thread Dmitry Adamushko
On 06/06/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ ... ] > > This way, on RT -> NORMAL transition.. some 'delta_exec' ( between > > deactivate_task() ---> activate_task() ) will be accounted later as if > > the task was 'sched_fair_class' during this time.. which I think makes > > some

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v15

2007-06-06 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 04:07:01PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > > On 06/06/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:01:43AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> > [...] and my tree already contains the fixes for rt task's > >> > exec_star

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v15

2007-06-06 Thread Balbir Singh
Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > On 06/06/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:01:43AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> > [...] and my tree already contains the fixes for rt task's >> > exec_start. >> >> Can I have this snapshot pls? I have to deal with the same issu

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v15

2007-06-06 Thread Dmitry Adamushko
On 06/06/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:01:43AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > [...] and my tree already contains the fixes for rt task's > exec_start. Can I have this snapshot pls? I have to deal with the same issue when the current task switches group

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v15

2007-06-06 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:01:43AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > [...] and my tree already contains the fixes for rt task's > exec_start. Can I have this snapshot pls? I have to deal with the same issue when the current task switches groups and I was planning to fix it by introducing a set_curr_t

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v15

2007-06-06 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i'm pleased to announce release -v15 of the CFS scheduler patchset. > > Do I smell a bug when a task switches its scheduling classes? > > Lets say a task was in real-time class for a long time and switches to > fair-sched class. When update_c

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v15

2007-06-05 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 05:09:08PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > i'm pleased to announce release -v15 of the CFS scheduler patchset. Do I smell a bug when a task switches its scheduling classes? Lets say a task was in real-time class for a long time and switches to fair-sched class. When update_cur

[patch] CFS scheduler, -v15

2007-05-31 Thread Ingo Molnar
i'm pleased to announce release -v15 of the CFS scheduler patchset. The CFS rolled-up patch against v2.6.22-rc3, v2.6.22-rc3-mm1, v2.6.21.1/3 or v2.6.20.10 can be downloaded from the usual place: http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/ -v15 includes smaller fixes only. More precise