Messages in this thread | | | From | (bill davidsen) | Subject | Re: Circular Convolution scheduler | Date | 21 Oct 2003 18:09:15 GMT |
| |
In article <3F8BCAB3.2070609@cyberone.com.au>, Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:
| I don't know anything about it, but I don't see what exactly you'd be | trying to predict: the kernel's scheduler _dictates_ scheduling behaviour, | obviously. Also, "best use of system resources" wrt scheduling is a big | ask considering there isn't one ideal scheduling pattern for all but the | most trivial loads, even on a single processor computer (fairness, latency, | priority, thoughput, etc). Its difficult to even say one pattern is better | than another.
I suspect that you've gotten hold of the wrong end of this stick... I would assume that you start by stating which pattern is better, then use the analysis to determine which of the possible actions is most likely to make the pattern match the target. By pattern I mean response vs. throughput, and similar tradeoffs.
This assumes: - that I understood what the o.p. meant - that the past is a useful predictor of the future
In any case, I think this scheduler proposal is interesting, I'd love to see a working version. -- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - 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/
| |