Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 21:48:27 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Ting Yang <tingy@cs.umass.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v7
Message-ID: <20070503194827.GA10423@elte.hu>
References: <200704300820.49078.a1426z@gawab.com> <20070503074552.GA14960@elte.hu> <4639F970.5080701@cs.umass.edu> <20070503151741.GC1812@elte.hu> <463A0734.6090408@cs.umass.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <463A0734.6090408@cs.umass.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1210
Lines: 26


* Ting Yang <tingy@cs.umass.edu> wrote:

> then how much time is needed for "curr" to build a 2 * 32 difference 
> on fair_key, with every 1 ms it updates fair_key by 1/32 ?  2 * 32 * 
> 32 !

yes - but the "*32" impacts the rescheduling granularity, the "/32" 
impacts the speed of how the key moves. So the total execution speed of 
the nice -10 task is still "*32" of a nice 0 task - it's just that not 
only it gets 32 times more CPU time, it also gets it at 32 times larger 
chunks at once. But the rescheduling granularity does _not_ impact the 
CPU share the task gets, so there's no quadratic effect.

but this is really simple to test: boot up CFS, start two infinite 
loops, one at nice 0 and one at nice +10 and look at it via "top" and 
type 's 60' in top to get a really long update interval for precise 
results. You wont see quadratically less CPU time used up by the nice 
+10 task, you'll see it getting the intended 1/32 share of CPU time.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/