[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070417055355.GQ943@1wt.eu>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 07:53:55 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
Hi Nick,
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 06:29:54AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
(...)
> And my scheduler for example cuts down the amount of policy code and
> code size significantly. I haven't looked at Con's ones for a while,
> but I believe they are also much more straightforward than mainline...
>
> For example, let's say all else is equal between them, then why would
> we go with the O(logN) implementation rather than the O(1)?
Of course, if this is the case, the question will be raised. But as a
general rule, I don't see much potential in O(1) to finely tune scheduling
according to several criteria. In O(logN), you can adjust scheduling in
realtime at a very low cost. Better processing of varying priorities or
fork() comes to mind.
Regards,
Willy
-
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