I was actually suspecting that the extra lines in your patch were there for a
reason :)
A few questions:
What is the real impact of a (slight) change in scheduling semantics?
Under which situation one should notice a difference?
As you state in your papers the global decision comes with a cost, is it worth it?
Could you make a port of your thing on recent kernels?
I tried and I failed and I don't have enough time to figure out why, that should be
trivial for you though.
TIA, ciao,
- Fabio
Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 05:18:03PM -0700, Fabio Riccardi wrote:
> >
> > I have measured the HP and not the "scalability" patch because the two do more
> > or less the same thing and give me the same performance advantages, but the
> > former is a lot simpler and I could port it with no effort on any recent
> > kernel.
>
> Actually, there is a significant difference between the HP patch and
> the one I developed. In the HP patch, if there is a schedulable task
> on the 'local' (current CPU) runqueue it will ignore runnable tasks on
> other (remote) runqueues. In the multi-queue patch I developed, the
> scheduler always attempts to make the same global scheduling decisions
> as the current scheduler.
>
> --
> Mike Kravetz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> IBM Linux Technology Center
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
