Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 16:52:59 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, efault@gmx.de, tingy@cs.umass.edu,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fair clock use in CFS
Message-ID: <20070514112259.GC28348@in.ibm.com>
Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com
References: <20070514083358.GA29775@in.ibm.com> <20070514102929.GL31925@holomorphy.com> <20070514103120.GA23766@elte.hu> <20070514110500.GV19966@holomorphy.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070514110500.GV19966@holomorphy.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 740
Lines: 22

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 04:05:00AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> The variability in ->fair_clock advancement rate was the mistake, at
> least according to my way of thinking. The queue's virtual time clock
> effectively stops under sufficiently high load, possibly literally in
> the event of fixpoint underflow. 

[snip]

> Basically it needs to move closer to EEVDF in these respects.

Doesn't EEVDF have the same issue? From the paper:

	V(t) = 1/(w1 + w2 + ...wn)

-- 
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/