lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Scheduler Cleanup
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Mike Kravetz wrote:

> I'm happy to see the cleanup of scheduler code that went into
> 2.4.15/16. One small difference in behavior (I think) is that
> the currently running task is not given preference over other
> tasks on the runqueue with the same 'goodness' value. I would
> think giving the current task preference is a good thing
> (especially in light of recent discussions about too frequent
> moving/rescheduling of tasks). Can someone provide the rational
> for this change? Was it just the result of making the code
> cleaner? Is it believed that this won't really make a difference?

Mike, I was actually surprised about the presence of that check inside the
previous code.
If you think about it, when a running task is scheduled ?

1) an IRQ wakeup some I/O bound task
2) the quota is expired

With 1) you've an incoming I/O bound task ( ie: ksoftirqd_* ) that is very
likely going to have a better dynamic priority ( if not reschedule_idle()
does not set need_resched ), while with 2) you've the task counter == 0.
In both cases not only the test is useless but is going to introduce 1)
the branch in the fast path 2) the cost of an extra goodness().




- 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 13:13    [W:0.140 / U:37.748 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site