Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: a quest for a better scheduler | Date | Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:35:46 +0100 (BST) | From | Alan Cox <> |
| |
> for the "normal case" performance see my other message.
I did - and with a lot of interest
> I agree that a better threading model would surely help in a web server, but to > me this is not an excuse to live up with a broken scheduler.
The problem has always been - alternative scheduler, crappier performance for 2 tasks running (which is most boxes). If your numbers are right then the HP patch is working as well for 1 or 2 tasks too
> Unless we want to maintain the position tha the only way to achieve good > performance is to embed server applications in the kernel, some minimal help > should be provided to goodwilling user applications :)
Indeed. I'd love to see you beat tux entirely in userspace. It proves the rest of the API for the kernel is right
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |