From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964951AbWDDBaB (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 21:30:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964933AbWDDBaB (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 21:30:01 -0400 Received: from omta03sl.mx.bigpond.com ([144.140.92.155]:4532 "EHLO omta03sl.mx.bigpond.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964951AbWDDBaA (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 21:30:00 -0400 Message-ID: <4431CC12.8060707@bigpond.net.au> Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 11:29:54 +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> <200604040929.48198.kernel@kolivas.org> <4431B756.3080101@bigpond.net.au> <200604041012.04591.kernel@kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: <200604041012.04591.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 01:29:54 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Con Kolivas wrote: > On Tuesday 04 April 2006 10:01, Peter Williams wrote: >> Con Kolivas wrote: >>> On Tuesday 04 April 2006 09:04, Peter Williams wrote: >>>> Al Boldi wrote: >>>>> 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. > > I am curious as to Al's answer since he asked for the feature. OK. > It would be > easy for me to modify the staircase cpu scheduler to allow the interactive > and compute modes be set on a per-cpu basis if that was desired. For that to > be helpful of course you'd have to manually set affinity for the tasks or > logins you wanted to run on each cpu(s). Yes, I agree that it would not be a good idea for CPUs that are sharing (via load balancing) the same set of tasks to have different schedulers or policy which is why I suggested only doing it at the cpuset level. Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce