Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760053AbXEaFkl (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2007 01:40:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757644AbXEaFke (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2007 01:40:34 -0400 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:60709 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756797AbXEaFkd (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2007 01:40:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 11:18:28 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: Nick Piggin , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Balbir Singh , efault@gmx.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tingy@cs.umass.edu, Peter Williams , kernel@kolivas.org, tong.n.li@intel.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, Ingo Molnar , Kirill Korotaev , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Guillaume Chazarain Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to CFS Message-ID: <20070531054828.GB663@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com References: <4656DF0C.9090306@sw.ru> <20070525153450.GA4679@in.ibm.com> <46570C70.4050209@sw.ru> <20070525180850.GA26884@in.ibm.com> <46577CA6.8000807@bigpond.net.au> <20070526154112.GA31925@holomorphy.com> <20070530171405.GA21062@in.ibm.com> <20070530201359.GD6909@holomorphy.com> <20070531032657.GA823@in.ibm.com> <20070531040926.GH6909@holomorphy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070531040926.GH6909@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: 1047 Lines: 25 On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:09:26PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > It's not all that tricky. Hmm ..the fact that each task runs for a minimum of 1 tick seems to complicate the matters to me (when doing group fairness given a single level hierarchy). A user with 1000 (or more) tasks can be unduly advantaged compared to another user with just 1 (or fewer) task because of this? > The ->fair_key computations are already > parametrized on load weights. The "task weights" here are just what > Linux calls "load weight," so we're largely done once task weights > are calculated. > > The tricky part (if any) is essentially what you've already got nailed > down, that is, creating and manipulating the accounting objects for the > task groups or whatever you're calling them. -- 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/