Hi,
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> and what about the mirror image problem?
Sorry, I'm not familiar with that in a scheduler context.
> Your math assumes that tasks
> use up their full timeslices, somewhere starting at (12):
>
> | (12)time_norm_app = sum_{t}^{T}(time_norm_{t} *
* Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It's a variation of the sleeper bonus. [...]
> >
> > hm, where are its effects described in your explanation? Seems like a
> > key item.
>
> It has no direct effect on the correctness of the mathematical model,
> the time is initialized before t
Hi,
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > It's a variation of the sleeper bonus. [...]
>
> hm, where are its effects described in your explanation? Seems like a
> key item.
It has no direct effect on the correctness of the mathematical model, the
time is initialized before the time is ad
* Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > My next question then is about this code of yours in the wakeup path:
> >
> > +static void
> > +enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> > +{
> > + kclock_t min_ti
Hi,
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> My next question then is about this code of yours in the wakeup path:
>
> +static void
> +enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> +{
> + kclock_t min_time;
> +
> + verify_queue(cfs_rq, cfs_rq->curr != se, se)
* Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > If this basic model is correct, we can look further.
>
> The basic model is correct insofar I use an absolute time instead of a
> relative time, but it's not the essence of my math, so I don't quite
> und
Hi,
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> If this basic model is correct, we can look further.
The basic model is correct insofar I use an absolute time instead of a
relative time, but it's not the essence of my math, so I don't quite
understand the point of this exercise.
bye, Roman
-
To
* Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > Roman, as an addendum to my review, please find below a prototype patch
> > i've just written that implements RSRFS (Really Simple Really Fair
> > Scheduler) ontop of CFS. It is intended to demons
Hi,
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Roman, as an addendum to my review, please find below a prototype patch
> i've just written that implements RSRFS (Really Simple Really Fair
> Scheduler) ontop of CFS. It is intended to demonstrate the essence of
> the math you have presented via yo
* Tong Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like this patch since it's really simple. CFS does provide a nice
> infrastructure to enable new algorithmic changes/extensions. My only
> concern was the O(log N) complexity under heavy load, but I'm willing
> to agree that it's OK in the common case.
I like this patch since it's really simple. CFS does provide a nice
infrastructure to enable new algorithmic changes/extensions. My only
concern was the O(log N) complexity under heavy load, but I'm willing to
agree that it's OK in the common case. Some comments on the code:
* Ingo Molnar <[E
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your math is fairly simple (and that is _good_, just like CFS's
> existing math is simple), it can be summed up in essence as (without
> complicating it with nice-level weighting, for easy
> understandability):
>
> " use the already existing p->sum_e
12 matches
Mail list logo
