[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
    Hi Nick,

    On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 06:29:54AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > And my scheduler for example cuts down the amount of policy code and
    > code size significantly. I haven't looked at Con's ones for a while,
    > but I believe they are also much more straightforward than mainline...
    > For example, let's say all else is equal between them, then why would
    > we go with the O(logN) implementation rather than the O(1)?

    Of course, if this is the case, the question will be raised. But as a
    general rule, I don't see much potential in O(1) to finely tune scheduling
    according to several criteria. In O(logN), you can adjust scheduling in
    realtime at a very low cost. Better processing of varying priorities or
    fork() comes to mind.


    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: 2007-04-17 07:57    [W:0.019 / U:72.552 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site