[lkml]   [2001]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: a quest for a better scheduler

    On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Mike Kravetz wrote:

    > Our 'priority queue' implementation uses almost the same goodness
    > function as the current scheduler. The main difference between our
    > 'priority queue' scheduler and the current scheduler is the structure
    > of the runqueue. We break up the single runqueue into a set of
    > priority based runqueues. The 'goodness' of a task determines what
    > sub-queue a task is placed in. Tasks with higher goodness values are
    > placed in higher priority queues than tasks with lower goodness
    > values. [...]

    we are talking about the same thing, re-read my mail. this design assumes
    that 'goodness' is constant in the sense that it does not depend on the
    previous process.

    and no, your are not using the same goodness() function, you omitted the
    prev->mm == next->mm component to goodness(), due to this design


    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 13:23    [W:0.019 / U:1.608 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site