Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:23:34 +0200 (CEST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: a quest for a better scheduler |
| |
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Hubertus Franke wrote:
> I understand the dilemma that the Linux scheduler is in, namely > satisfy the low end at all cost. [...]
nope. The goal is to satisfy runnable processes in the range of NR_CPUS. You are playing word games by suggesting that the current behavior prefers 'low end'. 'thousands of runnable processes' is not 'high end' at all, it's 'broken end'. Thousands of runnable processes are the sign of a broken application design, and 'fixing' the scheduler to perform better in that case is just fixing the symptom. [changing the scheduler to perform better in such situations is possible too, but all solutions proposed so far had strings attached.]
Ingo
- 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/
| |