[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] A try for a more fair scheduler ...
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Hubertus Franke wrote:

> Seems like a good approach. Could that be made more flexible.
> Architectures today expose cache miss numbers, which
> through simple markovian chains approximation allow a much better estimation
> of the cache footprint then inferring from time.
> Any chance to incoporate something like
> this into your cost function flexibly or is this just too <way out there> ?

I just wanted to code a solution that is compatible with all architectures
and that has the lower cost in terms of i-d/cache.
That's why i used jiffies instead of get_cycles() and time instead of perf
The bottom line is that having to choose between a process that is run for
10 ms and one that is run for 150 ms, by choosing the 150 one we have a
very good probability to pick up the one that has a greater footprint.
Coding more complex solutions will have the effect to add an extra cost
that will _probably_ vanish the better behavior given by the patch.

- Davide

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:08    [W:0.029 / U:0.768 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site