On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 03:35:33PM +0100, J.A. Magallon wrote:
>
> On 20020107 Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> >yes please (feel free to CC me on the answers), I'd really like to
> >reduce the scheduler O(N) overhead to the number of the running tasks,
> >rather than doing the recalculate all over the processes in the machine.
> >O(1) scheduler would be even better of course, but the below would
> >ensure not to hurt the 1 task running case, and it's way simpler to
> >check for correctness (so it's easier to include it as a start).
> >
>
> It looks like you all are going to turn the scheduler upside-down.
> Hmm, as a non-kernel-hacker observer from the world outside, could I
> make a suggestion ?
> Is it easy to split the thing in steps:
> - Move from single-queue to per-cpu-queue, with just the same algorithm
> that is running now for per-queue scheduling.
I don't mind about SMP (I don't think SMP scalability of the scheduler
is that bad to require this change in 2.4), I'd only like an UP (or SMP
as well of course) box not to follow a linked list of 2k tasks during a
reschedule if only 1 is running all the time.
> - Get that running for 2.18.18 and 2.5.2
> - Then start to play with the per-queue scheduling algorithm:
> * better O(n)
> * O(1)
> * O(1) with different queues for RT and non RT
> etc...
>
> Is it easy enough or are both steps so related that can not be split ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> (a linux user that tries experimental kernels and is seeing them grow
> like mushrooms in latest weeks...)
>
> --
> J.A. Magallon # Let the source be with you...
> mailto:jamagallon@able.es
> Mandrake Linux release 8.2 (Cooker) for i586
> Linux werewolf 2.4.18-pre1-beo #1 SMP Fri Jan 4 02:25:59 CET 2002 i686
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:34 EST