Re: Using O(1) scheduler with 600 processes.

[GrandMasterLee <masterlee@digitalroadkill.net>]

On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 00:18, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >> How many *processors*? Real ones.
> > 
> > Quad P4 Xeon. Dell 6650
> 
> I'd say you definitely want O(1) sched then (or just run -aa or something).
> But why don't you just try it and see?
> 
> M.


Heh..Well, I am currently using 2.4.19rc5aa1. We're having some major
stack problems, so I first when through trying to update the XFS
codebase in 2.4.19rc5aa1. That didn't prove very fruitful. I couldn't
even fully reverse the patch for some reason.

So I decided to try 2.4.20aa1 instead, reversing the xfs patches, and
then updating with a newer code base, worse problems reversing those xfs
patches. 

SO I decided to just roll my own with the known features we use in
production.

2.4.20 + xfs + lvm106 + rmap or aavm + O(1) sched + pte-highmem. 

well, I easily can get rmap+pte-highmem+xfs. Adding O(1) has proven to
be a pain, at least where P4's are concerned. I actually succesfully
merged 2.4.18-o1-p4 optimizations patch, only to have the vmlinux link
fail at the end of the kernel build.

I chased down the problem to an undefined reference to
arch_load_balance, but I can't find anywhere it's actually undefined in
my source.Come to find out, that smp_balance.h is only used for P4's
anyway, or so it said, and that's just my target platform.

I'm really close to nailing it, but I don't know where to go from here.

My build errors are here:
http://digitalroadkill.net/public/kernel/

any of the 2.4.20-rmap* error files. The error3 file has the ld error.
And as for building 2.4.20 with the updated patch, I can't even tell if
it's merged right cause there's not menu entry for the prio. 

--
GrandMasterLee