public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Davide Libenzi" <davidel@xmail.virusscreen.com>
To: "Jesse Pollard" <pollard@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil>,
	<anonymos@micron.net>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 1.2.45 Linux Scheduler
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 15:06:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <001301c0440c$fe6879d0$43bc0497@pcdavide> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200011011327.HAA204292@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil>

----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Pollard <pollard@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil>
To: <anonymos@micron.net>; <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: 1.2.45 Linux Scheduler


> ---------  Received message begins Here  ---------
>
> >
> > In the Linux scheduler they use a circular queue implementation with
round
> > robin. What is the advantage of this over just using a normal queue with
a
> > back and front. Also does anyone know what a test plan for such a design
> > would even begin to look like. This is a project for a proposal going
around
> > in my neighborhood and I am wondering why in the world someone would
want to
> > modify the Linux scheduler to this extent.
>
> This is not an authoritive answer but:
>
> It's simple, and fast. Locks only needed when adding/removing
> entries.
>
> It is also nearly optimum when the queue only has 5 (or so) number of
> entries. It will not be optimum if there are 32/64 CPUs with 120 or more
> runnable entries. There are other schedulers available that may do a
> better job for that situation.

I don't know who runs Linux w/ 32/64 CPUs and w/ 120 active procs but
if someone on earth exist ... :

http://www.mycio.com/davidel/lk/adapt-sched-v3.0-2.2.14.gz



- Davide


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  reply	other threads:[~2000-11-01 13:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2000-11-01 13:27 1.2.45 Linux Scheduler Jesse Pollard
2000-11-01 14:06 ` Davide Libenzi [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-11-01  4:12 Anonymous
2000-11-01 17:50 ` George Anzinger

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='001301c0440c$fe6879d0$43bc0497@pcdavide' \
    --to=davidel@xmail.virusscreen.com \
    --cc=anonymos@micron.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pollard@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox