lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.6.0 batch scheduling, HT aware
    Date
    On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:15, Con Kolivas wrote:
    > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:57, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > > Con Kolivas wrote:
    > > >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:36, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > > >>Con Kolivas wrote:
    > > >>>I discussed this with Ingo and that's the sort of thing we thought of.
    > > >>>Perhaps a relative crossover of 10 dynamic priorities and an absolute
    > > >>>crossover of 5 static priorities before things got queued together.
    > > >>> This is really only required for the UP HT case.
    > > >>
    > > >>Well I guess it would still be nice for "SMP HT" as well. Hopefully the
    > > >>code can be generic enough that it would just carry over nicely.
    > > >
    > > >I disagree. I can't think of a real world scenario where 2+ physical
    > > > cpus would benefit from this.
    > >
    > > Well its the same problem. A nice -20 process can still lose 40-55% of
    > > its performance to a nice 19 process, a figure of 10% is probably too
    > > high and we'd really want it <= 5% like what happens with a single
    > > logical processor.
    >
    > I changed my mind just after I sent that mail. 4 physical cores running
    > three nice 20 and one nice -20 task gives the nice -20 task only 25% of the
    > total cpu and 25% to each of the nice 20 tasks.

    Err that should read 4 logical cores.

    Con

    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.021 / U:90.672 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site