![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, 6 Jan 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > (if Davide's post gave you the impression that my patch doesnt do per-CPU > > queues then i'd like to point out that it does so. Per-CPU runqueues are a > > must for good performance on 8-way boxes and bigger. It's just the actual > > implementation of the 'per CPU queue' that is O(1).) > > Ahh, ok. No worries then. > > At that point I don't think O(1) matters all that much, but it certainly > won't hurt. UNLESS it causes bad choices to be made. Which we can only > guess at right now. You're the men :) Ok, this stops all the talks Ingo. Can you send me a link, there're different things to be fixed IMHO. The load estimator can easily use the current dyn_prio/time_slice by simplyfing things a _lot_ I would suggest a lower number of queues, 32 is way more than necessary. The rt code _must_ be better, it can be easily done by a smartest wakeup. There's no need to acquire the whole lock set, at least w/out a checkpoint solution ( look at BMQS ) that prevents multiple failing lookups inside the RT queue. - Davide - 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 | |||||||||||||