From: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Proposal For A More Scalable Scheduler ...
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:04:29 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20011030150429.E490@mikef-linux.matchmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20011030034058.B21884@mikef-linux.matchmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.40.0110300900190.1495-100000@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.40.0110300900190.1495-100000@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com>
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 09:02:54AM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 09:38:07PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > > 2) My Linux Scheduler Stuff Page:
> > > http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/lnxsched.html
> > >
> >
> > Anyone know if this is preempt safe? It's using processor specific lists,
> > and might not be.
>
> Processor specific lists ?
> The mss scheduler patch in for x86 but it's trivial ( about 10 lines of
> code ) to port it to other arcs.
>
>From the origional:
The proposed implementation uses a runqueue-per-cpu scheduler where,
inside each CPU, the scheduler code is exactly the same of the current one.
The big runqueue_lock has been substituted by locks that protects CPU run
queues.
By having separate run queues the length/cost of the goodness() loop
has been divided by N ( N == number of CPUs ) and the presence of
per-runqueue locks gives the scheduler a full parallelism between the CPUs.
-------------
Looking at this again, it probably is preempt safe... I probably merged it
wrong.
I'll try to fit it into my next kernel...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-10-30 23:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-10-30 5:38 [PATCH][RFC] Proposal For A More Scalable Scheduler Davide Libenzi
2001-10-30 11:40 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-10-30 17:02 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-10-30 23:04 ` Mike Fedyk [this message]
2001-10-30 23:14 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-10-30 23:44 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-10-31 0:01 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-10-30 14:28 ` Hubertus Franke
2001-10-30 17:19 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-10-30 16:29 ` Hubertus Franke
2001-10-30 18:50 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-10-30 16:52 ` Hubertus Franke
2001-10-30 19:08 ` [Lse-tech] " Mike Kravetz
2001-10-30 19:19 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-10-31 0:11 ` [Lse-tech] " Mike Kravetz
2001-10-31 1:06 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-10-31 5:29 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-10-31 4:45 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-10-31 5:50 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-10-31 17:07 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-10-31 17:59 ` Davide Libenzi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20011030150429.E490@mikef-linux.matchmail.com \
--to=mfedyk@matchmail.com \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.