* Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 23:32 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> > Ingo,
> > I had a question with respect to the definition of fairness used, esp
> > for tasks that are not 100% cpu hogs.
> >
> > Ex: consider two equally important tasks T1 and
Hi, Srivatsa
I would say in this case, your specifications of these tasks do not
actually give a base for evaluating the fairness. Imagine, when you want
to check if the generated schedule is _fair_ or not, you first have set
up a base which indicates the behavior tasks should have, and
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 01:24:18PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> It's not even feasible much of the time. Suppose your task ran for
>> 100ms then slept for 900ms. It can't get more than 10% of the CPU in
>> any scheduler, work-conserving or not.
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:43:12PM +0530,
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 01:24:18PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> It's not even feasible much of the time. Suppose your task ran for
> 100ms then slept for 900ms. It can't get more than 10% of the CPU in
> any scheduler, work-conserving or not.
sure. The question of fairnes arises when
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 09:24:17PM +0200, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> One quick observation.
>
> Isn't it important for both processes to have the same "loops_per_ms" value?
Good catch.
I have modified the testcase based on this observation (using
setitimer).
--
Regards,
vatsa
#include
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 23:32 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Ingo,
> I had a question with respect to the definition of fairness used, esp
> for tasks that are not 100% cpu hogs.
>
> Ex: consider two equally important tasks T1 and T2 running on same CPU and
> whose execution nature is:
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 23:32 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
Ingo,
I had a question with respect to the definition of fairness used, esp
for tasks that are not 100% cpu hogs.
Ex: consider two equally important tasks T1 and T2 running on same CPU and
whose execution nature is:
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 09:24:17PM +0200, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
One quick observation.
Isn't it important for both processes to have the same loops_per_ms value?
Good catch.
I have modified the testcase based on this observation (using
setitimer).
--
Regards,
vatsa
#include unistd.h
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 01:24:18PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
It's not even feasible much of the time. Suppose your task ran for
100ms then slept for 900ms. It can't get more than 10% of the CPU in
any scheduler, work-conserving or not.
sure. The question of fairnes arises when such a
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 01:24:18PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
It's not even feasible much of the time. Suppose your task ran for
100ms then slept for 900ms. It can't get more than 10% of the CPU in
any scheduler, work-conserving or not.
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:43:12PM +0530,
Hi, Srivatsa
I would say in this case, your specifications of these tasks do not
actually give a base for evaluating the fairness. Imagine, when you want
to check if the generated schedule is _fair_ or not, you first have set
up a base which indicates the behavior tasks should have, and
* Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 23:32 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
Ingo,
I had a question with respect to the definition of fairness used, esp
for tasks that are not 100% cpu hogs.
Ex: consider two equally important tasks T1 and T2 running on
> Ex: consider two equally important tasks T1 and T2 running on
> same CPU and
> whose execution nature is:
>
> T1 = 100% cpu hog
> T2 = 60% cpu hog (run for 600ms, sleep for 400ms)
>
> Over a arbitrary observation period of 10 sec,
>
> T1 was ready to run for all 10sec
>
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 11:32:05PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> I had a question with respect to the definition of fairness used, esp
> for tasks that are not 100% cpu hogs.
> Ex: consider two equally important tasks T1 and T2 running on same CPU and
> whose execution nature is:
>
On 09/05/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 05:04:31PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> thanks Mike - value 0x8 looks pretty good here and doesnt have the
> artifacts you found. I've done a quick -v11 release with that fixed,
> available at the usual place:
>
>
On 09/05/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 05:04:31PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
thanks Mike - value 0x8 looks pretty good here and doesnt have the
artifacts you found. I've done a quick -v11 release with that fixed,
available at the usual place:
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 11:32:05PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
I had a question with respect to the definition of fairness used, esp
for tasks that are not 100% cpu hogs.
Ex: consider two equally important tasks T1 and T2 running on same CPU and
whose execution nature is:
T1
Ex: consider two equally important tasks T1 and T2 running on
same CPU and
whose execution nature is:
T1 = 100% cpu hog
T2 = 60% cpu hog (run for 600ms, sleep for 400ms)
Over a arbitrary observation period of 10 sec,
T1 was ready to run for all 10sec
T2 was
18 matches
Mail list logo
