Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Aug 1997 17:05:32 -0600 (CST) | From | Adam McKee <> | Subject | Re: stress testing and loadavg |
| |
I was not trying to argue that it's not a problem -- I realize that user code could very well do nasty tricks to get more CPU - it's just kind of sad that this would be a problem. Perhaps it should be modified so that you must block for a certain length of time before going back to your min-run-queue? And/or maybe you don't go back to your min-run-queue when you block, just decrement the run-queue? I will think about this more - it is a problem I had not even considered.
I would like to see something like this make it into the kernel, though I realize it may not stand a chance of acceptance in its current form. I will continue to experiment with a few more ideas I have for it. At the very least, it has been a nice introduction to the kernel sources for me. This was my first kernel hack 8)
-- Adam
On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Alan Cox wrote:
> > its minimum run-queue. I hope people would realize that putting in system > > calls just to get back to the minimum run-queue is a brain-damaged thing > > to do. Of course, I'm sure compiler writers realize that optimizing for > > Doesn't hold water. If I do stupid tricks to get 99.95% of the CPU time > by misusing scheduling tricks and kill the machine because I know its > a brain damaged scheduler .. > > Alan >
| |