Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: James Bruce <bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:07:49 -0400
Chris Friesen wrote:
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
The sorts of like explicit decisions I'd like to be made for these are:
(1) In a mixture of tasks with varying nice numbers, a given nice number
corresponds to some share of CPU bandwidth. Implementations
should not have the freedom to change this arbitrarily according
to some intention.
The first question that comes to my mind is whether nice levels should be linear or not. I would lean towards nonlinear as it allows a wider range (although of course at the expense of precision). Maybe something like "each nice level gives X times the cpu of the previous"? I think a value of X somewhere between 1.15 and 1.25 might be reasonable.
Nonlinear is a must IMO. I would suggest X = exp(ln(10)/10) ~= 1.2589
That value has the property that a nice=10 task gets 1/10th the cpu of a nice=0 task, and a nice=20 task gets 1/100 of nice=0. I think that would be fairly easy to explain to admins and users so that they can know what to expect from nicing tasks.
What about also having something that looks at latency, and how latency changes with niceness?
I think this would be a lot harder to pin down, since it's a function of all the other tasks running and their nice levels. Do you have any of the RT-derived analysis models in mind?
What about specifying the timeframe over which the cpu bandwidth is measured? I currently have a system where the application designers would like it to be totally fair over a period of 1 second. As you can imagine, mainline doesn't do very well in this case.
It might be easier to specify the maximum deviation from the ideal bandwidth over a certain period. I.e. something like "over a period of one second, each task receives within 10% of the expected bandwidth".
- Jim Bruce
-
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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: William Lee Irwin III
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- References:
- [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: Ingo Molnar
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: Con Kolivas
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: hui
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: Ingo Molnar
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: hui
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: Pekka Enberg
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: Willy Tarreau
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: William Lee Irwin III
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: Chris Friesen
- [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- Prev by Date: [RFC][PATCH 0/15] VFS based Union Mount
- Next by Date: Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea
- Previous by thread: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- Next by thread: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
