lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] Re: [PATCH 0/9] CPU controller
    From
    Date
    On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 20:09 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
    > On Friday 28 April 2006 17:46, Mike Galbraith wrote:
    > > On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 09:11 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
    > > > On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 09:56 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
    > > > > I'm also pretty sure, that CPU controller based on timeslice tricks
    > > > > behaves poorly on burstable load patterns as well and with interactive
    > > > > tasks. So before commiting I propose to perform a good testing on
    > > > > different load patterns.
    > > >
    > > > Yes, it can only react very slowly.
    > >
    > > Actually, this might not be that much of a problem. I know I can
    > > traverse queue heads periodically very cheaply. Traversing both active
    > > and expired arrays to requeue starving tasks once every 100ms costs max
    > > 4usecs (3GHz P4) for a typical distribution.
    >
    > How many tasks? Your function was O(n) so the more tasks the longer that max
    > value was.

    Nope. It's not O(tasks), it's O(occupied_queues). Occupied queues is
    generally not a large number.

    -Mike

    -
    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: 2006-04-28 12:18    [W:0.019 / U:15.932 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site