Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:37:45 +0200 (CEST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: New schedule() and semaphore implementation ... |
| |
On Sat, 12 Jun 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> You can avoid starvation even with FIFO behaviour. BTW I noticed now that > currently (in 2.3.6) we are doing a _FIFO_ wakeup even in accept(2) > [...]
i've left it intentionally at FIFO for the time being. Once all the networking (and other) SMP improvements have stabilized i have planned to benchmark both variants under RL load and pick the better performing one (or FIFO if they perform equally). Both FIFO and LIFO has pros and cons. (my suspicion too is that LIFO will win, but i'm not taking it for granted)
-- mingo
- 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/
| |