[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:0.112 / U:0.776 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site