[lkml]   [2001]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: a quest for a better scheduler
    Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 10:03:10AM -0400, Hubertus Franke wrote:
    > > I understand the dilemma that the Linux scheduler is in, namely satisfy
    > > the low end at all cost. [..]
    > We can satisfy the low end by making the numa scheduler at compile time (that's
    > what I did in my patch at least).
    > Andrea

    I fully agree with this approach. It would be very hard to design a
    scheduler that performs equally well on a UP machine running couple of
    processes and a NUMA machine. These two cases represent the two ends of
    spectrum. The two schedulers should be separate IMO and one of them
    should be selected at compile time.


    Khalid Aziz Linux Development Laboratory
    (970)898-9214 Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins, CO
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:23    [W:0.020 / U:7.384 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site