[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
    On 4/23/07, Linus Torvalds <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > >
    > > The "give scheduler money" transaction can be both an "implicit
    > > transaction" (for example when writing to UNIX domain sockets or
    > > blocking on a pipe, etc.), or it could be an "explicit transaction":
    > > sched_yield_to(). This latter i've already implemented for CFS, but it's
    > > much less useful than the really significant implicit ones, the ones
    > > which will help X.
    > Yes. It would be wonderful to get it working automatically, so please say
    > something about the implementation..
    > The "perfect" situation would be that when somebody goes to sleep, any
    > extra points it had could be given to whoever it woke up last. Note that
    > for something like X, it means that the points are 100% ephemeral: it gets
    > points when a client sends it a request, but it would *lose* the points
    > again when it sends the reply!

    It would seem like there should be a penalty associated with sending
    those points as well, so that two processes communicating quickly with
    each other won't get into a mutual love-fest that'll capture the
    scheduler's attention.

    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: 2007-04-24 17:13    [W:0.021 / U:91.776 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site