lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH][RFC] Proposal For A More Scalable Scheduler ...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Mike Kravetz wrote:

> I'm going to try and merge your 'cache warmth' replacement for
> PROC_CHANGE_PENALTY into the LSE MQ scheduler, as well as enable
> the code to prevent task stealing during IPI delivery. This
> should still be significantly different than your design because
> MQ will still attempt to make global decisions. Results should
> be interesting.

I'm currently evaluating different weights for that.
Right now I'm using :

if (p->cpu_jtime > jiffies)
weight += p->cpu_jtime - jiffies;

that might be too much.
Solutions :

1)
if (p->cpu_jtime > jiffies)
weight += (p->cpu_jtime - jiffies) >> 1;

2)
int wtable[];

if (p->cpu_jtime > jiffies)
weight += wtable[p->cpu_jtime - jiffies];

Speed will like 1).
Other optimization is jiffies that is volatile and forces gcc to always
reload it.

static inline int goodness(struct task_struct * p, struct mm_struct
*this_mm, unsigned long jiff)

might be better, with jiffies taken out of the goodness loop.
Mike I suggest you to use the LatSched patch to 1) know how really is
performing the scheduler 2) understand if certain test gives certain
results due wierd distributions.




- 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:0.077 / U:0.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site