Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:38:54 +1000 | From | Peter Williams <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] V-3.0 Single Priority Array O(1) CPU Scheduler Evaluation |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > >>>Have you considered submitting one to -mm* for wider testing? >> >> I've made patches available for 2.6.8-rc2-mm1 and I'll provide them for >> mm2 as soon as possible. Is there something else I should be doing? > > > I'll probably drop staircase soon, give nicksched a whizz for a couple of > cycles. You're welcome to join the queue ;)
OK, thanks.
> > But let me re-repeat again that CPU scheduler problems tend to take a > _long_ time to turn up - you make some change and two months later some > person with a weird workload on expensive hardware hits a nasty corner > case. So I do think that we'd have to hit a nasty problem with the current > scheduler to go making deep changes. > > Although most of the fragility has been in CPU/node/HT balancing rather > than in the timeslice allocation area. I assume you're not touching the > former.
Correct. No (algorithmic) changes have been made to load balancing type code. There have been some modifications so that my statistics gathering copes with a task moving to different CPU and some modifications due to changes in data structures but these should not change the way that load balancing etc. work.
> It's the desktop users who seem to be more affected by the > timeslice allocation algorithms, and the testing turnaround is much faster > there.
OK.
Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce - 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/
| |