RE: Re: Is guest OS oriented scheduling welcome?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



alex wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:49 PM, alex <tomorrowanewday@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote: 
>> I tested the CFS in detail, according to
>> Documentation/sched-design-CFS.txt 
>> 
>>   I found it does not work.  Is this a bug to CFS?
>> 
> 
> I reviewed my experiment, and found a mistake there.
> The CFS is OK.
> 
> But the information shown from 'top' reveals that the jitter is
> somewhat great. 
> 
>>   And I found CFS does not reserve cpu usage. That is to say, when
>> none else is active, the active one can take all the cpu time. this
>> statement holds. 

>From this threads:
http://markmail.org/message/rmww5bbxkdcpoqjm
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/containers/2008-August/012128.html
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0606.1/2270.html
CFS doesn't support hard-cpu-limit, like "cap" in credit scheduler. There are some patches posted in LKML
http://markmail.org/message/fuiq2dn3h74yj4zg, but applied on ooold scheduler.

Will you add hard-cpu-limit feature into CFS?:) I think it's usefull.

Best Regards,
Disheng, Su--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux