Re: [PATCH 7/8] sched: non-zero lag renice

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 11:47 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
>  > Then renicing, esp when lowering nice value (getting heavier), its possible
>  > to get into a starvation scenario. If you got too much runtime as a very
>  > light task, you get shot way far too the right, which means you'll have to
>  > wait for a long time in order to run again.
>  >
>  > If during that wait you get reniced down, fairness would suggest you get run
>  > earlier, because you deserve more time.
>  >
>  > This can be solved by scaling the vruntime so that we keep the real-time
>  > lag invariant.
> 
> If we've already been shot way out to the right, presumably that would give us 
> a large real-time lag.  If we renice to a lower nice level, wouldn't we want 
> to reduce the real-time lag rather than make it constant?

Ah, see but a 1ms real-time lag might be gigantic on weight=15, but
nearly nothing on weight=88761.

1e6 * 1024/15 is massively larger than 1e6 * 1024/88761.

1000000*1024/15 = 68266666
1000000*1024/88761 = 11536




--
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/