> Possibly, if it was some kind of multi-level scheduler - i.e. a
> top-level scheduler picks which container to run, and then a
> configurable per-container scheduler picks a task from that container.
What do you think about Plugsched? Peter Williams introduced a simple
scheduler interface for sc
On 11/29/06, Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your dynamic scheduler mechanisms appear (from what I can tell after a
brief glance) to be a candidate for being such a controller.
Possibly, if it was some kind of multi-level scheduler - i.e. a
top-level scheduler picks which container to
pj wrote:
> See Paul Menage's most recent patch proposal at:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/11/17/217
> Subject: [PATCH 0/6] Multi-hierarchy Process Containers
> Date:Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:11:59 -0800
I'm behind the times. Paul Menage's most recent proposal is at:
http://lkml.org/lkml/20
Felix wrote:
> The cpu<->scheduler mapping is controlled via cpusets. Thus you
> can switch the scheduler for a cpuset containing multiple cpus and
> keep the rest untouched.
I don't have comments on the main focus of this work - schedulers are
not my expertise.
I just noticed this lkml post beca
Hej,
we're a student group witch is working on a research project concerning
the ability to switch the cpu scheduler of the linux kernel at runtime.
We use Peter Williams Plugsched patch [1] to get an interface for the
different scheduler implementations. Some month ago we started to modify
the c
5 matches
Mail list logo
