Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:29:50 -0600 (CST) | From | Brian Hurt <> | Subject | Re: Linux scheduler, overscheduling performance, threads |
| |
This discussion is rapidly degenerating into a "does too!" "does not!" match. So let me turn the question around. Assume, for a moment, that a patch for Linux existed which did two things: 1) Ran signifigantly faster for large run queues- for example it switched from the current O(n) algorithm to an O(log n) algorithm. 2) Ran slower than the current scheduling algorithm for short run queues. And the patch had no other effects on the kernel at large and was otherwise well written, etc.
Am I right in assuming that wether the patch would be accepted would depend upon how much slower it made the common case? Obviously, if it made the common case no slower, no one would mind putting it in the kernel. On the other hand, if it made the common case a million times slower, there is no way it'd ever get into the kernel, and rightfully so. Where (roughly) inbetween is the breakpoint?
Brian
- 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/
| |