Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:05:31 -0700
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 06:22:53PM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote:
The goal of a proportional-share scheduling algorithm is to minimize the
above metrics. If the lag function is bounded by a constant for any
thread in any time interval, then the algorithm is considered to be
fair. You may notice that the second metric is actually weaker than
first. In fact, if an algorithm achieves a constant lag bound, it must
also achieve a constant bound for the second metric, but the reverse is
not necessarily true. But in some settings, people have focused on the
second metric and still consider an algorithm to be fair as long as the
second metric is bounded by a constant.
Using these metrics it is possible to write benchmarks quantifying
fairness as a performance metric, provided weights for nice numbers.
Not so coincidentally, this also entails a test of whether nice numbers
are working as intended.
-- wli
P.S. Divide by the length of the time interval to rephrase in terms of
CPU bandwidth.
-
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:
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- From: William Lee Irwin III
- RE: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- From: Li, Tong N
- Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- Prev by Date: Re: Fw: [PATCH -mm] workqueue: debug possible endless loop in cancel_rearming_delayed_work
- Next by Date: RE: NonExecutable Bit in 32Bit
- Previous by thread: RE: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- Next by thread: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading