[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704190837420.31693@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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]
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i disagree that the user 'would expect' this. Some users might. Others
> would say: 'my 10-thread rendering engine is more important than a
> 1-thread job because it's using 10 threads for a reason'. And the CFS
> feedback so far strengthens this point: the default behavior of treating
> the thread as a single scheduling (and CPU time accounting) unit works
> pretty well on the desktop.
>
> think about it in another, 'kernel policy' way as well: we'd like to
> _encourage_ more parallel user applications. Hurting them by accounting
> all threads together sends the exact opposite message.
There are counter argouments too. Like, not every user knows if a certain
process is MT or not. I agree though that doing accounting and fairness at
a depth lower then USER is messy, and not only for performance.
- Davide
-
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