Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 18 Mar 2007 07:54:20 +0100 | From | "Radoslaw Szkodzinski" <> | Subject | Re: [ck] Re: is RSDL an "unfair" scheduler too? |
| |
On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote: > On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 06:24 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > Maybe we're all discussing the problem because we have reached the point > > where we need two types of schedulers : one for the desktop and one for > > the servers. After all, this is already what is proposed with preempt, > > it would make sense provided they share the same core and avoid ifdefs > > or unused structure members. Maybe adding OPTIONAL unfairness to RSDL > > would help some scenarios, but in any case it is important to retain > > the default fairness it provides. > > Bingo. >
Sounds like Staircase's interactive mode switch, except this actually requires writing additional code.
The per-user system would also be nice for servers, provided there are CPU/disc IO/swapper/... quotas or priorities at least.
All in all, I'd hate to see mldonkey eating 1/3 of CPU time, just because it runs as another user. - 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/
| |