later,
ian
Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Lorenzo M. Catucci wrote:
>
> > IMHO, the nice 20 part is not that nice... it is a hack too; much
> > better putting in an explicit SCHED_IDLE policy.
>
> OK, I'll keep that in mind. I now have most votes for
> a separate SCHED_IDLE policy.
>
> But about the multiple-vs-single queue, Linux is better off
> with just two queues, one for RT and one for the rest.
>
> I'm currently running a single-queue system with a load of
> 100+ (100 CPU loops running at nice 0!) and the system remains
> very much responsive... On a P100!
>
> X11amp seems to skip a beat every now and then, however ;)
>
> Rik.
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl |
> | Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ |
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-- ian@wehrman.com georgia institute of technology- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/