[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0704210931370.9964@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, caglar@...dus.org.tr,
Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> If you remember, with 50/50, I noticed some difficulties to fork many
> processes. I think that during a fork(), the parent has a higher probability
> of forking other processes than the child. So at least, we should use
> something like 67/33 or 75/25 for parent/child.
It would be even better to simply have the rule:
- child gets almost no points at startup
- but when a parent does a "waitpid()" call and blocks, it will spread
out its points to the childred (the "vfork()" blocking is another case
that is really the same).
This is a very special kind of "priority inversion" logic: you give higher
priority to the things you wait for. Not because of holding any locks, but
simply because a blockign waitpid really is a damn big hint that "ok, the
child now works for the parent".
Linus
-
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