lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
FromTimothy Covell <>
SubjectRe: [patch] O(1) scheduler, -G1, 2.5.2-pre10, 2.4.17 (fwd)
DateSat, 12 Jan 2002 10:26:13 -0600
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