Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760830AbXE1BRl (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 May 2007 21:17:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758445AbXE1BRe (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 May 2007 21:17:34 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.180]:21449 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755728AbXE1BRe (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 May 2007 21:17:34 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=j70wWX6dIfsiGT6Upv66g7FREPt3/ZUF38kM+KbHVzkDXeMBBDvU2l6odvK5llQOEbPwcC98ffluTFQ6eFpPE+M57NzPsBzUOoReRywuX4nxWkj9/Mt4wQWlS1Xl1lbXF9NlS5UDTZkLOUchzC/p5lDiIyAmpbIb4PI+6w+olnQ= Message-ID: <465A2DA4.7070409@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 09:17:24 +0800 From: Li Yu User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070403) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v14 References: <20070523120616.GA23407@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20070523120616.GA23407@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1240 Lines: 36 Ingo Molnar wrote: > i'm pleased to announce release -v14 of the CFS scheduler patchset. > > The CFS patch against v2.6.22-rc2, v2.6.21.1 or v2.6.20.10 can be > downloaded from the usual place: > > http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/ > In comment before distribute_fair_add(), we have such text: /* * A task gets added back to the runnable tasks and gets * a small credit for the CPU time it missed out on while * it slept, so fix up all other runnable task's wait_runtime * so that the sum stays constant (around 0). * [snip] */ But as I observe by cat /proc/sched_debug (2.6.21.1, UP, RHEL4), I found the all waiting fields often are more than zero, or less than zero. IMHO, the sum of task_struct->wait_runtime just is the denominator of all runnable time in some ways, is it right? if so, increasing the sum of wait_runtime just make scheduling decision more precise. so what's meaning for keeping the wait_runtime is zero-sum? Good luck - Li Yu - 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/