![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Friday 11 January 2002 23:45, Robert Love wrote: > On Fri, 2002-01-11 at 16:46, Timothy Covell wrote: > > But, given the above case, what happens when you have Sendmail on > > the first CPU and Squid is sharing the second CPU? This is not optimal > > either, or am I missing something? > > Correct. I sort of took the "optimal cache use" comment as > tongue-in-cheek. If I am mistaken, correct me, but here is my > perception of the scenario: > > 2 CPUs, 3 tasks. 1 task receives 100% of the CPU time on one CPU. The > remaining two tasks share the second CPU. The result is, of three > evenly prioritized tasks, one receives double as much CPU time as the > others. > > Aside from the cache utilization, this is not really "fair" -- the > problem is, the current design of load_balance (which is quite good) > just won't throw the tasks around so readily. What could be done -- > cleanly -- to make this better? > > Robert Love That's the million dollar question. I was just concerned that if that were to be implemented in a production kernel, then lots of admins would be confused. -- timothy.covell@ashavan.org. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||