Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: low priority soft RT? | From | Benny Amorsen <> | Date | 26 Jul 1999 15:09:40 +0200 |
| |
>>>>> "cd" == cd smith <cd_smith@ou.edu> writes:
cd> Benny Amorsen <amorsen@sscnet.com> wrote: >> As it is, the kernel locks often become a bottleneck on systems >> with lots of penguins. Look at this scenario:
cd> Just curious, what exactly do you mean by "lots of penguins"? I cd> assume you mean processes? What do penguins have to do with cd> anything. ;)
Sorry, I meant lots of processors. Does Ultralinux still display "N penguins found" these days, or did that go the way of "lpN on fire"?
cd> Actually running? That would be bad. It would mean that we'd have cd> to preempt another processor, which I gather is a very expensive cd> thing to do.
I don't know how expensive it is, you are probably right.
cd> If you mean that when scheduling is already cd> happening, run processes with a kernel lock before processes cd> without one, I don't know. It may be worth benchmarking to decide.
This is the approach Rik van Riel's patch takes, but only with SCHED_IDLE (based on my reading). It looks like it could easily be adapted to do what I propose. -- the big question is whether it would be any help.
To test the effect, we would need a benchmark for which the kernel currently scales badly due to lock contention, but which also does a significant amount of user space processing.
Benny
- 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/
| |