[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1251322663.3882.48.camel@raz>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:37:43 +0300
From: raz ben yehuda <raziebe@...il.com>
To: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
peterz@...radead.org, maximlevitsky@...il.com, efault@....de,
riel@...hat.com, wiseman@...s.biu.ac.il,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER
On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 15:15 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 08/26/2009 02:50 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > What problem?
> >
> > All I've seen is "I want 100% access to a CPU". That's not a problem
> > statement - it's an implementation.
> >
> > What is the problem statement?
>
> I can only speak for myself...
>
> In our case the problem statement was that we had an inherently
> single-threaded emulator app that we wanted to push as hard as
> absolutely possible.
>
> We gave it as close to a whole cpu as we could using cpu and irq
> affinity and we used message queues in shared memory to allow another
> cpu to handle I/O. In our case we still had kernel threads running on
> the app cpu, but if we'd had a straightforward way to avoid them we
> would have used it.
>
> Chris
Chris. I offer myself to help anyone wishes to apply OFFSCHED.
--
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