Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761412AbXESN2G (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 May 2007 09:28:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757483AbXESN15 (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 May 2007 09:27:57 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.230]:64187 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753209AbXESN14 (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 May 2007 09:27:56 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=rmZdZUHuFIFUW2eu+3qWWwFP7rWQ5M94RDkR4vhgQcJWw9ZU8j5+voUDIe1s8JPiMexdtSFC4pcvmjIJedlsuw4QBoGa6+kgkCmo1eLmo8RKputdnG4Xr4YHt0gz3XV2EbCMnHdhkwAEYgq0OyFUBj3ihLy2W+k6NxbgLXG9XDM= Message-ID: Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 15:27:54 +0200 From: "Dmitry Adamushko" To: "Peter Williams" Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v12 Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , "Linux Kernel" In-Reply-To: <464DA61A.4040406@bigpond.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070513153853.GA19846@elte.hu> <464A6698.3080400@bigpond.net.au> <20070516063625.GA9058@elte.hu> <464CE8FD.4070205@bigpond.net.au> <20070518071325.GB28702@elte.hu> <464DA61A.4040406@bigpond.net.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1554 Lines: 36 On 18/05/07, Peter Williams wrote: > [...] > One thing that might work is to jitter the load balancing interval a > bit. The reason I say this is that one of the characteristics of top > and gkrellm is that they run at a more or less constant interval (and, > in this case, X would also be following this pattern as it's doing > screen updates for top and gkrellm) and this means that it's possible > for the load balancing interval to synchronize with their intervals > which in turn causes the observed problem. A jittered load balancing > interval should break the synchronization. This would certainly be > simpler than trying to change the move_task() logic for selecting which > tasks to move. Just an(quick) another idea. Say, the load balancer would consider not only p->load_weight but also something like Tw(task) = (time_spent_on_runqueue / total_task's_runtime) * some_scale_constant as an additional "load" component (OTOH, when a task starts, it takes some time for this parameter to become meaningful). I guess, it could address the scenarios your have described (but maybe break some others as well :) ... Any hints on why it's stupid? > > Peter > -- > Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au -- Best regards, Dmitry Adamushko - 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/