[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ck] Re: is RSDL an "unfair" scheduler too?
On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith <> wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 06:24 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Maybe we're all discussing the problem because we have reached the point
> > where we need two types of schedulers : one for the desktop and one for
> > the servers. After all, this is already what is proposed with preempt,
> > it would make sense provided they share the same core and avoid ifdefs
> > or unused structure members. Maybe adding OPTIONAL unfairness to RSDL
> > would help some scenarios, but in any case it is important to retain
> > the default fairness it provides.
> Bingo.

Sounds like Staircase's interactive mode switch, except this actually
requires writing additional code.

The per-user system would also be nice for servers, provided there are
CPU/disc IO/swapper/... quotas or priorities at least.

All in all, I'd hate to see mldonkey eating 1/3 of CPU time, just
because it runs as another user.
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: 2007-03-18 07:57    [W:0.204 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site