lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subjectkernel scheduler

I seem to remember various people bringing up the idea of changing the way
that the scheduler works, and it being shot down quite a while back. I
have been looking at the QNX-style scheduler patches for 2.0.x, and I
would like to know what the feeling is about touching the scheduling code.

I seem to remember that the main objections at the time (this was before
the QNX-style patches) were that the proposed changes were too complex,
and broke the KISS rule. Would a multilevel-feedback scheduler still be
considered too complex for the kernel? Would SMP support benefit from
this? Could real-time applications benefit?

What I'm after is a scheduler that works well under all loading
conditions. I have had a machine up to a load of 178 before, and it took
3 days to get it back to normal. I know a bit of this was due to
swapping, which is being addressed already, but I'd like to work with the
scheduler to see if that would also help matters.

Your feedback on this will be appreciated.

Andrew

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Andrew Anderson http://amelia.db.erau.edu/~andrew/
if(!(family_tree=fork())){redneck=TRUE;}


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:41    [W:0.046 / U:0.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site