Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: Using O(1) scheduler with 600 processes. | From | GrandMasterLee <> | Date | 24 Jan 2003 15:44:02 -0600 |
| |
On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 12:22, mgross wrote: > On Thursday 23 January 2003 10:08 pm, GrandMasterLee wrote: > > Well, if I could get a clean patch against 2.4.20, or possibly some help > > fixing the one I do have, thanks to Ingo, then we'd have a straight > > O(1) sched for 2.4.20. I tried merging the patch that Ingo gave me, and > > everything seems OK, but I don't have any menu selection for O(1) stuff > > in the kernel config.(0 and 100 priority bits) > > > > So I can't tell if it's enabled. > > do a ps -aux and see if there are any process migration threads, if you do > then its running the O(1) scheduler. > > > > > > Your milage will vary. > > > > > > Give it a try. > > > > > > --mgross > > > > > > > I agree. In the interest of time, I may have to forego O(1), but maybe > > I'll get lucky. :) *hint*hint* :) > > You really should try the O(1) scheduler. 600 process is a lot, we had ~100 > for our benchmarks so it wasn't as big of a overhead for the old scheduler. > (Running Itanium 2's didn't hurt either ;) > > Your running Xeon's with more processes, you are more likely to see a benefit > from the O(1) scheduler. > > --mgross
Ok...that's good feed back. If someone could help me sort out my patch problems, I'd be happy to integrate it. but as WLI pointed out, 2.5 has what I need, 2.4 doesn't, and thus, more effort, seemingly, is directed at fixing O(1) for 2.5, versus backporting to 2.4.
-- GrandMasterLee <masterlee@digitalroadkill.net> - 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/
|  |