[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH,RFC] fix o(1) handling of threads
On January 2, 2003 07:22 pm, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > Here is the scheduler-tunables patch updated to include USER_PENALTY and
> > THREAD_PENANTY. This on top of ptg_B0.
> there's no way we'll make the scheduler internal constants tunable in such
> a wide range. Such a patch has been submitted a couple of months ago
> already. I do use something like that to test tunings, but it's definitely
> not something we want to make tunable directly in the stock kernel.

Nor would I advocate doing so. I added two 'constants' I wanted to
be able to test them so I updated Robert's patch... Two questions
for you.

1. Do you have any comments/suggestsion on the ptg_B0 patch?

2. I have been playing with using user and thread penalties together.
- they often interact badly. Using just one works very well. This
can be fixed - but gets messy. Alternately, I am thinking about
implementing per user policies. ie.

a. govern thread groups
b. govern all threads, ignoring groups, for a user
c. govern processes for a user

This can be done cleanly. Would something along the lines of sys_nice
be the way to implement the kernel side of the user interface to this?

Ed Tomlinson
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 13:32    [W:0.047 / U:13.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site