Re: CFS and O(1) scheduler
- From: bansal <bansal.dk@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 00:44:25 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 7, 12:37 pm, Michael Schnell
<mschnell_at_bschnell_dot...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
As it uses a red-black tree, it should only be O(log n) not O(n). Or am I
wrong?
That is beyond my insight in these algorithms.
It would be great to know which "O" is offers. (even thought it's off
topic in this newsgroup).
Supposedly for servers running a huge number of tasks, the O(1)
scheduler still is the best choice. Here you usually have enough cache
to tame the bigger memory need, too.
I suppose someone who sets up those beasts should be able to select and
install the scheduler he wants.
-Michael
Hi All,
Although I don't have much experience on CFS but according to my
understanding, CFS is also an O(1) scheduler. they have just made same
enhancement to O(1) scheduler to make it work completely fair to
different task. CFS is based on time needed by a process. Since it
maintains RB Tree and always pick the root node to run, its a O(1)
scheduler. It has a separate process to maintain RB tree which run
independent of scheduler.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: CFS and O(1) scheduler
- From: Michael Schnell
- Re: CFS and O(1) scheduler
- References:
- Re: CFS and O(1) scheduler
- From: Juergen Beisert
- Re: CFS and O(1) scheduler
- From: Michael Schnell
- Re: CFS and O(1) scheduler
- From: Juergen Beisert
- Re: CFS and O(1) scheduler
- From: Michael Schnell
- Re: CFS and O(1) scheduler
- Prev by Date: Re: CFS and O(1) scheduler
- Next by Date: Re: CFS and O(1) scheduler
- Previous by thread: Re: CFS and O(1) scheduler
- Next by thread: Re: CFS and O(1) scheduler
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|