From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964897AbWDDABv (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:01:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964893AbWDDABc (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:01:32 -0400 Received: from omta03sl.mx.bigpond.com ([144.140.92.155]:24283 "EHLO omta03sl.mx.bigpond.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751057AbWDDABa (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:01:30 -0400 Message-ID: <4431B756.3080101@bigpond.net.au> Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 10:01:26 +1000 From: Peter Williams User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060313) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Con Kolivas CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Boldi Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.3.1 for 2.6.16-rc5 References: <200604031459.51542.a1426z@gawab.com> <4431A9E7.40406@bigpond.net.au> <200604040929.48198.kernel@kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: <200604040929.48198.kernel@kolivas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH PLAIN at omta03sl.mx.bigpond.com from [147.10.133.38] using ID pwil3058@bigpond.net.au at Tue, 4 Apr 2006 00:01:27 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Con Kolivas wrote: > On Tuesday 04 April 2006 09:04, Peter Williams wrote: >> Al Boldi wrote: > >>> Is there a module to autotune these values according to cpu/mem/ctxt >>> performance? > > I think you're thinking of Jake's genetic algorithms (separate patch). They > tune the zaphod scheduler but bear in mind the limitation of such an > algorithm is they can only tune for one workload which means that if you have > two workloads running concurrently with different requirements, the other > will suffer. > >>> Also, different schedulers per cpu could be rather useful. >>> Peter Williams wrote: >> I think that would be dangerous. However, different schedulers per >> cpuset might make sense but it involve a fair bit of work. > > I'm curious. How do you think different schedulers per cpu would be useful? I don't but I think they MIGHT make sense for cpusets e.g. one set with a scheduler targeted at interactive tasks and another targeted at server tasks. NB the emphasis on might. Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce