![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:42:20 +0600, root said: > >> As we know that, linux scheduler use separate runqueue for every CPU of >> a multiprocessor system, which having an active and an expired array.If >> we use only one expired array, then the CPUs of a multiprocessor system >> will be able to share their expired task via the accumulated expired >> array, > > I got this far, and the first thought that popped into my head was: > > "Wow. This might actually win on a UP or small MP (2-15 CPU). But the > lock contention on a big 512-CPU machoflops box is likely going to *suck*". > > For that matter, my quick eyeballing of the code, although it doesn't *find* > any race conditions, doesn't convince me there's any protection taken to make > sure there aren't any. Is there some subtle algorithmic trick I'm missing > to ensure Nothing Bad Can Happen? Lock contention is going to be the least of your worries. Destroying CPU affinity is the big one I suspect. -- Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country the best in the world, and those who believe it already is. Each group calls the other unpatriotic. - 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: 2007-04-09 02:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||