[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Scheduler Cleanup
On Mon, 2001-11-26 at 15:49, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> 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().

doesn't schedule() also get called when a new task is put on the

when that happens, doesn't the check matter? or perhaps I'm just



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 13:13    [W:1.082 / U:0.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site