Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]

[Ingo Molnar]

* William Lee Irwin III <wli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> [...] Also rest assured that the tone of the critique is not hostile, 
> and wasn't meant to sound that way.

ok :) (And i guess i was too touchy - sorry about coming out swinging.)

> Also, given the general comments it appears clear that some 
> statistical metric of deviation from the intended behavior furthermore 
> qualified by timescale is necessary, so this appears to be headed 
> toward a sort of performance metric as opposed to a pass/fail test 
> anyway. However, to even measure this at all, some statement of 
> intention is required. I'd prefer that there be a Linux-standard 
> semantics for nice so results are more directly comparable and so that 
> users also get similar nice behavior from the scheduler as it varies 
> over time and possibly implementations if users should care to switch 
> them out with some scheduler patch or other.

yeah. If you could come up with a sane definition that also translates 
into low overhead on the algorithm side that would be great! The only 
good generic definition i could come up with (nice levels are isolated 
buckets with a constant maximum relative percentage of CPU time 
available to every active bucket) resulted in having a per-nice-level 
array of rbtree roots, which did not look worth the hassle at first 
sight :-)

until now the main approach for nice levels in Linux was always: 
"implement your main scheduling logic for nice 0 and then look for some 
low-overhead method that can be glued to it that does something that 
behaves like nice levels". Feel free to turn that around into a more 
natural approach, but the algorithm should remain fairly simple i think.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/