On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 21:44 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> >
> > That assumes per-user scheduling groups; other configurations would
> > make it one step for each level of hierarchy. It may be possible to
> > reduce those steps to only state transitions that change weightings
> > and increment
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 11:03:16AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Well, SMP load balancing is what makes all this hard.
Agreed. I am optimistic that we can achieve good degree of SMP
fairness using similar mechanism as smpnice ..
> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:18:59PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagi
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Can you repeat your tests with this patch pls? With the patch applied,
>>I am now getting the same split between nice 0 and nice 10 task as
>>CFS-v13 provides (90:10 as reported by top )
>>
>> 5418 guest 20 0 2464
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 02:05:36PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> great. Btw., could you please keep the "up to this point there should be
> no behavioral change in CFS" fundamental splitup of your patches -
sure ..basically the changes required in CFS core is the introduction of two
structures - st
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 01:11:40PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > I was planning on reusing smpnice concepts here, with the difference
> > > that we balance group weights across CPU in addition to total weight
> > > of CPUs.
> >
> > ok, that w
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 01:11:40PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I was planning on reusing smpnice concepts here, with the difference
> > that we balance group weights across CPU in addition to total weight
> > of CPUs.
>
> ok, that would be (much) simpler that any explicit vcpu approach. Do you
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 10:29:51AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > btw., what are you thoughts about SMP?
>
> I was planning on reusing smpnice concepts here, with the difference
> that we balance group weights across CPU in addition to total weig
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 10:29:51AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> btw., what are you thoughts about SMP?
I was planning on reusing smpnice concepts here, with the difference
that we balance group weights across CPU in addition to total weight of
CPUs.
For ex, assuming weight of each task is 10
CPU
Srivatsa Vaddagiri a écrit :
Can you repeat your tests with this patch pls? With the patch applied, I am
now getting the same split between nice 0 and nice 10 task as CFS-v13
provides (90:10 as reported by top )
Yep, this fixes the problem for me too.
Thanks.
--
Guillaume
-
To unsubscribe fro
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you repeat your tests with this patch pls? With the patch applied,
> I am now getting the same split between nice 0 and nice 10 task as
> CFS-v13 provides (90:10 as reported by top )
>
> 5418 guest 20 0 2464 304 236 R 90 0.0
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 08:32:52PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Here's an attempt to extend CFS (v13) to be fair at a group level,
> > rather than just at task level. The patch is in a very premature state
> > (passes simple tests, smp load balance not supported yet) at this
> > point. I am sen
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 12:26:16AM +0200, Guillaume Chazarain wrote:
> As a sidenote, while in CFS-v13 a nice=0 tasks seems to get 10x more CPU
> than a nice=10 one, with the group fairness patch, the ratio drops to
> less than 2x (for tasks with the same UID).
gah ..silly me.
Can you repeat yo
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's an attempt to extend CFS (v13) to be fair at a group level,
> rather than just at task level. The patch is in a very premature state
> (passes simple tests, smp load balance not supported yet) at this
> point. I am sending it out early t
13 matches
Mail list logo
