On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 02:25:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:06:04PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > Also, even it things magically worked out, its still very icky to mix
> > > the normalized vruntime into things.
> >
> > I agree
>
> In any case, I pushed out a
Peter Zijlstra writes:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:59:08AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote:
>> Peter Zijlstra writes:
>> > Google has this patch-set replacing min_vruntime with an actual global
>> > 0-lag, which greatly simplifies things. If only they'd post it sometime
>> > :/ /me prods pjt an
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:06:04PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Also, even it things magically worked out, its still very icky to mix
> > the normalized vruntime into things.
>
> I agree
In any case, I pushed out a bunch of patches to:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:59:08AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra writes:
> > Google has this patch-set replacing min_vruntime with an actual global
> > 0-lag, which greatly simplifies things. If only they'd post it sometime
> > :/ /me prods pjt and ben with a sharp stick :-)
>
Peter Zijlstra writes:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 04:23:16PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 16 September 2016 at 14:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> >> > Also, the normalize comment in dequeue_entity() worries me, 'someone'
>> >> > didn't update that when he moved update_min_vruntime() around.
On 20 September 2016 at 13:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 04:23:16PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 16 September 2016 at 14:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> >> > Also, the normalize comment in dequeue_entity() worries me, 'someone'
>> >> > didn't update that when he moved
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 04:23:16PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 16 September 2016 at 14:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> > Also, the normalize comment in dequeue_entity() worries me, 'someone'
> >> > didn't update that when he moved update_min_vruntime() around.
> >
> > I now worry more, so w
On 16 September 2016 at 14:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:36:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 15 September 2016 at 15:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:47:52AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
>> >> Update the sequence to follow the right one
On 16 September 2016 at 12:51, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:47:52AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> > -dequeue task
> > -put task
> > -change the property
> > -enqueue task
> > -set task as current task
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > inde
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:36:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 15 September 2016 at 15:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:47:52AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> Update the sequence to follow the right one:
> >> -dequeue task
> >> -put task
> >> -change the propert
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:47:52AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> -dequeue task
> -put task
> -change the property
> -enqueue task
> -set task as current task
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 3e52d08..7a9c9b9 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched
On 15 September 2016 at 15:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:47:52AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> When a task switches to fair scheduling class, the period between now and
>> the last update of its utilization is accounted as running time whatever
>> happened during this p
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:47:52AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> When a task switches to fair scheduling class, the period between now and
> the last update of its utilization is accounted as running time whatever
> happened during this period. This wrong accounting applies to the task
> and also
When a task switches to fair scheduling class, the period between now and
the last update of its utilization is accounted as running time whatever
happened during this period. This wrong accounting applies to the task
and also to the task group branch.
When changing the property of a running task
14 matches
Mail list logo