[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f44c5fdf0703172354o935e140p8a3e64411d3ffa0a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 07:54:20 +0100
From: "Radoslaw Szkodzinski" <astralstorm@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "Willy Tarreau" <w@....eu>, "Al Boldi" <a1426z@...ab.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"William Lee Irwin III" <wli@...omorphy.com>, ck@....kolivas.org,
"Avi Kivity" <avi@...o.co.il>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Nicholas Miell" <nmiell@...cast.net>
Subject: Re: [ck] Re: is RSDL an "unfair" scheduler too?
On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 06:24 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > Maybe we're all discussing the problem because we have reached the point
> > where we need two types of schedulers : one for the desktop and one for
> > the servers. After all, this is already what is proposed with preempt,
> > it would make sense provided they share the same core and avoid ifdefs
> > or unused structure members. Maybe adding OPTIONAL unfairness to RSDL
> > would help some scenarios, but in any case it is important to retain
> > the default fairness it provides.
>
> Bingo.
>
Sounds like Staircase's interactive mode switch, except this actually
requires writing additional code.
The per-user system would also be nice for servers, provided there are
CPU/disc IO/swapper/... quotas or priorities at least.
All in all, I'd hate to see mldonkey eating 1/3 of CPU time, just
because it runs as another user.
-
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