![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:11, Nick Piggin wrote: > I think this patch is much too ugly to get into such an elegant scheduler. > No fault to you Con because its an ugly problem. You're too kind. No it's ugly because of my code but it works for now. > How about this: if a task is "delta" priority points below a task running > on another sibling, move it to that sibling (so priorities via timeslice > start working). I call it active unbalancing! I might be able to make it > fit if there is interest. Other suggestions? I discussed this with Ingo and that's the sort of thing we thought of. Perhaps a relative crossover of 10 dynamic priorities and an absolute crossover of 5 static priorities before things got queued together. This is really only required for the UP HT case. Con - 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 12:59 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||