lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH][RFC] Proposal For A More Scalable Scheduler ...
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Mike Fedyk wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 09:02:54AM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 09:38:07PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > > > 2) My Linux Scheduler Stuff Page:
> > > > http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/lnxsched.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > Anyone know if this is preempt safe? It's using processor specific lists,
> > > and might not be.
> >
> > Processor specific lists ?
> > The mss scheduler patch in for x86 but it's trivial ( about 10 lines of
> > code ) to port it to other arcs.
> >
>
> >From the origional:
> The proposed implementation uses a runqueue-per-cpu scheduler where,
> inside each CPU, the scheduler code is exactly the same of the current one.
> The big runqueue_lock has been substituted by locks that protects CPU run
> queues.
> By having separate run queues the length/cost of the goodness() loop
> has been divided by N ( N == number of CPUs ) and the presence of
> per-runqueue locks gives the scheduler a full parallelism between the CPUs.
>
> -------------
>
> Looking at this again, it probably is preempt safe... I probably merged it
> wrong.
>
> I'll try to fit it into my next kernel...

No probably You're right and I posted a wrong patch.
Try to get the one that is here :

http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/mss.html



- Davide


-
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: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.067 / U:0.464 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site