[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention
On Friday 02 June 2006 19:17, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> What about the part in dependent_sleeper() being so bully and actively
> resched other low priority sibling tasks? I think it would be better
> to just let the tasks running on sibling CPU to finish its current time
> slice and then let the backoff logic to kick in.

That would defeat the purpose of smt nice if the higher priority task starts
after the lower priority task is running on its sibling cpu.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-06-02 11:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean