[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:0.107 / U:3.116 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site