Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Stuart MacDonald" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Implementing temporal affinity | Date | Fri, 25 Aug 2000 14:43:20 -0400 |
| |
From: "Chris Swiedler" <ceswiedler@mindspring.com> > > Let's say the minimum time is 50 cycles: > > > > Process A last_cpu = 1 > > Process B last_cpu = 1 > > Process C last_cpu = 1 > > > > Process C runs for 200 cycles on CPU 1 > > Process C last_cpu = 1 > > Process A runs for 300 cycles on CPU 2 > > Process A last_cpu = 2 > > > > Process C is running on CPU 1 > > Process C last_cpu = 1 > > Process B runs for 15 cycles on CPU 2 but is interrupted > > Process B last_cpu = 1 (unaltered) > > > > Here we have: > > Process A last_cpu = 2 > > Process B last_cpu = 1 > > Process C last_cpu = 1 > > C is currenty running on 1 > > Scheduler needs to pick a process for 2 > > A runs on 2 > > > > C is starved > > ??? I don't see how C is starved. C and B have an equal chance of being > scheduled for CPU 1 (barring other factors). Certainly, C won't be starved > in an extreme sense, because we're only adjusting the goodness(), and so > eventually it will be scheduled again.
Sorry, typo. B is starved. C is already running on 1 and has 185 cycles left.
Also, I meant starved in that even though B is the process time-affinity scheduling should choose, it won't get chosen.
..Stu
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |