[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4619A101.5030600@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 22:12:17 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
CC: root <swordfish@...tbd.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Scheduler: Improving the scheduler performance.
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:42:20 +0600, root said:
>
>> As we know that, linux scheduler use separate runqueue for every CPU of
>> a multiprocessor system, which having an active and an expired array.If
>> we use only one expired array, then the CPUs of a multiprocessor system
>> will be able to share their expired task via the accumulated expired
>> array,
>
> I got this far, and the first thought that popped into my head was:
>
> "Wow. This might actually win on a UP or small MP (2-15 CPU). But the
> lock contention on a big 512-CPU machoflops box is likely going to *suck*".
>
> For that matter, my quick eyeballing of the code, although it doesn't *find*
> any race conditions, doesn't convince me there's any protection taken to make
> sure there aren't any. Is there some subtle algorithmic trick I'm missing
> to ensure Nothing Bad Can Happen?
Lock contention is going to be the least of your worries.
Destroying CPU affinity is the big one I suspect.
--
Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country
the best in the world, and those who believe it already is. Each group
calls the other unpatriotic.
-
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