Re: [SHED] Questions.
From: Nick Piggin (piggin_at_cyberone.com.au)
Date: 08/31/03
- Previous message: Duncan Sands: "Re: 2.6.0-test4: uhci-hcd.c: "host controller process error", slab call trace"
- In reply to: Ian Kumlien: "Re: [SHED] Questions."
- Next in thread: Nick Piggin: "Re: [SHED] Questions."
- Reply: Nick Piggin: "Re: [SHED] Questions."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:41:01 +1000 To: Ian Kumlien <pomac@vapor.com>
Ian Kumlien wrote:
>On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 12:17, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>Search for "Nick's scheduler policy" ;)
>>
>
>Heh, yeah, i have been following your and con's work via
>marc.theaimsgroup.com. =)
>
Well, my patch does almost exactly what you describe.
>
>But wouldn't ingos off the shelf stuff work better with the quantum
>values like that?
>
That means more complexity and behaviour that is more difficult
to trace. The interactivity stuff is already a monster to tune.
>
>And is the preempt min quantum in there?
>
No. If you do that, you'll either break the priority concept very
badly, or you'll break it a little bit and turn the scheduler into
an O(n) one.
-
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/
- Previous message: Duncan Sands: "Re: 2.6.0-test4: uhci-hcd.c: "host controller process error", slab call trace"
- In reply to: Ian Kumlien: "Re: [SHED] Questions."
- Next in thread: Nick Piggin: "Re: [SHED] Questions."
- Reply: Nick Piggin: "Re: [SHED] Questions."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
