Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756141AbXICSyY (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Sep 2007 14:54:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753786AbXICSyS (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Sep 2007 14:54:18 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:36419 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752939AbXICSyR (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Sep 2007 14:54:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:54:03 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Roman Zippel Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE/RFC] Really Simple Really Fair Scheduler Message-ID: <20070903185403.GA23479@elte.hu> References: <20070902120154.GA23769@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7-deb -1.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1871 Lines: 41 * Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > Roman, as an addendum to my review, please find below a prototype patch > > i've just written that implements RSRFS (Really Simple Really Fair > > Scheduler) ontop of CFS. It is intended to demonstrate the essence of > > the math you have presented via your patch. (it has no nice levels > > support yet, to make the math really apparent to everyone interested) > > It simplifies the math too much, the nice level weighting is an > essential part of the math and without it one can't really understand > the problem I'm trying to solve. At http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/3/168 > I provide an example of the math, which more acurately demonstrates > the essential math. as i mentioned it above, in the first level review i'm mainly interested in your patch's behavior wrt. simple nice-0 tasks, how they run and how they sleep and wake up. Nothing else. Why? That's what 99% of the Linux tasks do after all. So could you please confirm whether that aspect of what i wrote (both in words and in code) is correct? If this basic model is correct, we can look further. If this basic model is flawed, no amount of weighting, nice level logic, rounding behavior can fix it. I'm sure you agree with that too. That's why i wrote this prototype, please confirm or deny whether i correctly understood how you intend to handle nice-0 tasks. (From your mails i read a part-acknowledgement of that but i'd like to see a more clear acknowledgement - or please mention any issues if you know about them.) Thanks! Ingo - 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/