Re: [patch] CFS (Completely Fair Scheduler), v2
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:53:03 +0200
* Peter Williams <pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Have you considered using rq->raw_weighted_load instead of
rq->nr_running in calculating fair_clock? This would take the nice
value (or RT priority) of the other tasks into account when
determining what's fair.
Peter
PS You'd have to change the migration thread's load_weight from 0 to 1
in order to prevent divide by zero without having to explicitly check
for it every time.
yeah - nice idea, i'll try this.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [patch] CFS (Completely Fair Scheduler), v2
- From: Ingo Molnar
- Re: [patch] CFS (Completely Fair Scheduler), v2
- From: Peter Williams
- [patch] CFS (Completely Fair Scheduler), v2
- Prev by Date: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- Next by Date: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch] CFS (Completely Fair Scheduler), v2
- Next by thread: Staircase cpu scheduler v17.1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
