[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070417093600.GA22626@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:36:00 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
"Michael K. Edwards" <medwards.linux@...il.com>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
* Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au> wrote:
> There's a lot of ugly code in the load balancer that is only there to
> overcome the side effects of SMT and dual core. A lot of it was put
> there by Intel employees trying to make load balancing more friendly
> to their systems. What I'm suggesting is that an N CPUs per runqueue
> is a better way of achieving that end. I may (of course) be wrong but
> I think that the idea deserves more consideration than you're willing
> to give it.
i actually implemented that some time ago and i'm afraid it was ugly as
hell and pretty fragile. Load-balancing gets simpler, but task picking
gets alot uglier.
Ingo
-
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