[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <69304d110609191050w777a5c48ibe84bc0e3ce65df3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:50:46 +0200
From: "Antonio Vargas" <windenntw@...il.com>
To: "Ludovic Drolez" <ldrolez@...box.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
On 9/19/06, Ludovic Drolez <ldrolez@...box.com> wrote:
> Vincent Pelletier <vincent.plr <at> wanadoo.fr> writes:
> > I'll do some tests soon to see which version gives better performance at a
> > higher level than just process migration cost - if different at all.
>
> I think that your patch should improve the performance because process
> migrations are expensive (cache miss) and should be avoided when not
> really necessary.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ludovic.
>
A variant on this theme would be (not tested or somewhat, just a
random idea for considering):
1. find if the process is a cpu-hog, if not then ignore
2. find somehow how much time has this process on it's current cpu
3. then, instead of always substracting 1 from th current load on the
current cpu, substract for example 1...0 when running from 0 to 60
seconds... this way cpu hogs would only rotate slowly?
in code:
number_to_sub_from_queue_load = (256 - min(256,
time_from_last_change_of_cpu)) >> 8;
somehow managing to get fixedpoint loadlevels on the runqueues would
make this work better....
--
Greetz, Antonio Vargas aka winden of network
http://network.amigascne.org/
windNOenSPAMntw@...il.com
thesameasabove@...gascne.org
Every day, every year
you have to work
you have to study
you have to scene.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists