![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 04:07 -0400, Chris Snook wrote: > To clarify, I'm not suggesting that the "balance with cpu (x+1)%n only" > algorithm is the only way to do this. Rather, I'm pointing out that > even an extremely simple algorithm can give you fair loading when you > already have CFS managing the runqueues. There are countless more > sophisticated ways we could do this without using global locking, or > possibly without any locking at all, other than the locking we already > use during migration. > > -- Chris Yes, as Andi and Chris also pointed out, I'll think about if global synchronization can be removed or relaxed. Thanks, tong - 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: 2007-07-24 19:13 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||