Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763610AbXFEIzK (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2007 04:55:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762077AbXFEIy7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2007 04:54:59 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.227]:28139 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757143AbXFEIy6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2007 04:54:58 -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=SE3yi710sGfvygfNRCJbEfUFL4dnK4W9bj7fIEmKjs5Xi0/bzF0OZFsMfytrPgzvXGxPnHIZYGIcXBJ+7VPy9YBj4sOFIbcNJFzbMES1jpyKNwhRtr7qLpYgy0cAC0uVx99wpnijCPO7h0BBUuNa2hnINk+VuLGZVg/PF2/4V4w= Message-ID: <466524D3.7060806@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:54:43 +0800 From: Li Yu User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070403) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: LKML Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v14 References: <20070523120616.GA23407@elte.hu> <4658F1D6.3070706@gmail.com> <20070529061544.GA28523@elte.hu> <20070529080738.GA28657@elte.hu> <465E992C.4020601@gmail.com> <20070531095337.GA8104@elte.hu> <465FC7E7.7080804@gmail.com> <20070601192142.GA10039@elte.hu> <4664CB6D.8060507@gmail.com> <20070605080130.GA4301@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20070605080130.GA4301@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: 1613 Lines: 51 Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Li Yu wrote: > > >> Eh, I wrong again~ I even took an experiment in last week end, this >> idea is really bad! ;( >> >> I think the most inner of source of my wrong again and again is >> misunderstanding virtual time. For more better understanding this, I >> try to write one python script to simulate CFS behavior. However, It >> can not implement the fairness as I want. I really confuse here. >> >> Would you like help me point out what's wrong in it? Any suggestion is >> welcome. Thanks in advanced. >> > > sorry, my python-fu is really, really weak. All i can give you at the > moment is the in-kernel implementation of CFS :-) > > :~) I changed that script to check my understanding of virtual clock. I found out we really got the really fairness if allocate resource by selecting the most earliest task virtual clock! this really eliminate my doubt on virtual clock in much degree. for example: ./htucfs.py 60 ============================== TASK_1/C10.00 / 1.0 : 11.0 sec TASK_2/C10.00 / 2.0 : 20.0 sec TASK_3/C10.00 / 3.0 : 30.0 sec ============================== It seem my haltingly english works fine when I read the introduction of virtual clock ;-) The next step is find out why wait_runtime can not work normally in my script. Thanks for your quickly reply. 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/