Messages in this thread | | | From | (H. Peter Anvin) | Subject | Re: Interesting scheduling times - NOT | Date | 18 Sep 1998 18:08:03 GMT |
| |
Followup to: <199809180835.BAA30897@bitmover.com> By author: lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > No it doesn't. Your test is broken, it doesn't measure what you think > it measures. Your test depends on the schedulor doing the right thing > (in your mind) when all you are doing is sched_yield(). You had a high > priority process and a bucnh of low priority processes, all yielding to > each other. My guess is that you thought the scheduler would resched > the one high priority process back to itself. Under 2.0.33, at least, > that doesn't happen. I think a lot of operating systems would take the > yielding process out of the resched equation - as does Linux - so what > you are doing is yielding to one of your low priority processes. > > This is trivial to see if you just run top while running your test, you > can see the low priority processes getting cycles and they shouldn't be. >
Would this work if the processes where SCHED_RR as opposed to normal dynamic-priority processes?
-hpa
-- PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD 1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74 See http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/ for web page and full PGP public key I am Bahá'í -- ask me about it or see http://www.bahai.org/ "To love another person is to see the face of God." -- Les Misérables
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |