lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] scheduler cleanup
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Artur Skawina wrote:

> module and worry about external interfaces. Expecting to be able to
> hack an internal function and not have to check, and if necessary
> fix everything that depends on the old behaviour is silly. ]

It's silly your otimization. What do you think to gain? Show me the
numbers. IMHO you only add a very subdle complexity and dependences to
code that currently are completly orthogonal and you gain nothing. I
consider it a design bug. It's a no-way for me and it was obvious since
the first look at your patch.

>more though.) [This is different from the previously mentioned
>scenarios (no idle cpus involved).]

The previous scenario was the same scenario but thought against my last
algorithm that I mistaken with the 2.3.x one. If you fall back on the idle
cpus only if avg_slice is relevant, then you don't need to take all CPU
busy with SCHED_OTHER tasks to make the same behaviour to happen.

>No, this does not appear to be a big issue. I'm not even convinced it

That's why I was not worried. Anyway it _make_ differences.

Andrea


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.035 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site