hey guys, I'm looking at http://linux-vserver.org/CPU_Scheduler, and specifically at the "Fair Share" section (http://linux-vserver.org/CPU_Scheduler#Fair_Share), and i'm a bit confused. The way the calculation works, it seems like "1/2" and "1/4" isnt exactly right for the wasted cpu time? It looks more like "1/2 over (1/2 + 1/4)" vs "1/4 over (1/2 + 1/4)" of the waste cpu time. Is this intentional? This is a different concept from the "standard" cpu scheduling, which is a "pure fraction of 1" ("hard limit"). A few other questions: - the most basic one: how do i define guaranteed + fair share scheduling for a context? like eg. guarantee of 1/5 for a context, + 1/2 for fair scheduling. I'm looking at the flower page, and while I know what file to edit for guaranteed cpu, i dont know its format. Is it simply '1/5'? How about for fair scheduling? Where do i put this? - is the fair scheduling ratio "dynamic"? Let's say I have 4 contexts. All of them have Rk/Tk 1/4. And let's suppose that right now, 3 contexts are idle - and only 1 context is busy. So will the wasted cpu time all go to this one busy context? (ie. '1/4 over 1/4'). Or is it more like '1/4 over (1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4)'? - how does this whole bucket token thing work? ie. is it a "sub-scheduler" within the standard kernel scheduler (kernel schedules vserver process, vserver process then schedules context). Or is it an entire "takeover/replacement" of the standard kernel scheduler? - any recommended number for "amount of tokens on start"? Let's say I dont want any penalization (and therefore minimum tokens = 0). And I want scheduling to be as smooth as possible. Then the recommended amount would be either 0, or fill rate? I guess this also means that i am asking a question about the scheduling algorithm. Does it mean that if a context has let's say 1000 tokens, that the scheduler will let it use up all its tokens (if it's that busy!) before moving on to another context? - any recommended number for maximum number of tokens? again, if i want smooth scheduling, it looks like putting the fill interval value here would be right. thanks, -jf -- In the meantime, here is your PSA: "It's so hard to write a graphics driver that open-sourcing it would not help." -- Andrew Fear, Software Product Manager, NVIDIA Corporation http://kerneltrap.org/node/7228