![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > but i think the fundamental question remains even on Sunday mornings - > is the plist overhead worth it? Compared to the simple sorted list we > exchange O(nr_RT_tasks_running) for O(nr_RT_levels_used) [which is in > the 1-100 range], is that a significant practical improvement? By > overhead i dont just mean cycle cost, but also architectural flexibility > and maintainability. You'll have to explain the "architectural flexibility and maintainability" costs . Questioning if plist works correctly isn't a long term maintainability problem, in my mind. I don't see any architectural costs considering the plist API, which is why I saw a clear path to integrate plist in the first place. For me it's strictly a speed question. I was reviewing V0.7.40-04 and it looks like apples and oranges to me. It's more a question of where do you perfer the latency , in up() or in down() .. plist is slower for non-RT tasks, but non-RT tasks also get the benefit of priority ordering. Daniel - 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: 2005-06-05 16:34 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||