Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754447AbXEGOP0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2007 10:15:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754419AbXEGOPY (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2007 10:15:24 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:41156 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754331AbXEGOPX (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2007 10:15:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 19:52:57 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: Damien Wyart , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, "Tong N. Li" Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8 Message-ID: <20070507142257.GA633@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com References: <46399B51.9040608@dunaweb.hu> <20070503130201.GA9000@elte.hu> <20070503132932.GA4204@localhost.localdomain> <20070503145318.GA17776@in.ibm.com> <20070503155347.GF19966@holomorphy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070503155347.GF19966@holomorphy.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1800 Lines: 38 On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 08:53:47AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 08:23:18PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > And what about group scheduling extensions? Do you have plans to work on > > it? I was begining to work on a prototype to do group scheduling based > > on CFS, basically on the lines of what you and Linus had outlined > > earlier: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/18/271 > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/18/244 > > Tong Li's Trio scheduler does a bit of this, though it doesn't seem to > have the mindshare cfs seems to have acquired. > > The hyperlink seems to have broken, though: > http://www.cs.duke.edu/~tongli/linux/linux-2.6.19.2-trio.patch The big question I have is, how well does DWRR fits into the "currently hot" scheduling frameworks like CFS? For ex: if the goal is to do fair (group) scheduling of SCHED_NORMAL tasks, can CFS and DWRR co-exist? Both seem to be radically different algorithms and my initial impressions of them co-existing is "No", but would be glad to be corrected if I am wrong. If they can't co-exist, then we need a different way of doing group scheduling on top of CFS, as that is gaining more popularity on account of better handling of interactivity. Tong, I understand a center hallmark of DWRR is SMP fairness. Have you considered how bad/good the other alternative to achieve SMP fairness which is in vogue today : pressure/weight based balancing (ex: smpnice and CKRM CPU scheduler - ckrm.sourceforge.net/downloads/ckrm-ols03-slides.pdf)? -- Regards, vatsa - 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/