![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:36, Nick Piggin wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > >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. > > Well its all the special cases for batch scheduling that I don't like, > the idea to not run batch tasks on a package running non batch processes > is sound. I thought the batch scheduling code is Ingo's, but I could > be mistaken. Anyway... I realise the special cases suck. Code for one setting in a spot where it affects everyone is bad. Regarding the batch scheduling; no that's my special flavour coded ugly from the ground up. Ingo's is much smarter than this but once again I needed something that works now without too much effort. > > >>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. > > Well I guess it would still be nice for "SMP HT" as well. Hopefully the > code can be generic enough that it would just carry over nicely. I disagree. I can't think of a real world scenario where 2+ physical cpus would benefit from this. > It does > have complications though because the load balancer would have to be taught > about it, and those architectures that do hardware priorities probably > don't even want it. Probably the simple relative/absolute will have to suffice. However it still doesn't help the fact that running something cpu bound concurrently at nice 0 with something interactive nice 0 is actually slower if you use a UP HT processor in SMP mode instead of UP. 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 | |||||||||||||