Re: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in the Linux-kernel

[Raistlin <raistlin@linux.it>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1279 bytes --]

On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 10:42 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 18:06 +0200, Raistlin wrote:
> > Anyway, maybe if, on some architecture, for some kind of application,
> > the affinity may have been set to preserve some kind actual cache or
> > memory locality for the task access pattern, maybe this could be an
> > issue, couldn't it? :-)
> > I mean, in some case where being sure of having a task running on a
> > particular CPU is somehow of paramount importance...
> 
> Right, and you answered your own question :-), its _running_ that is
> important, so as long as its blocked (not running), you're free to place
> the task on another cpu if that helps out with something.
> 
Yep! Re-reading both your and my comments I saw I misunderstood your
point! :-(

I agree thet you have to move some task and, moving the "blocked" ones,
would allow the lock-owner to continue running in its place, which
sounds good to me to. :-)

Sorry!
Dario

-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa  (Italy)

http://blog.linux.it/raistlin / raistlin@ekiga.net /
dario.faggioli@jabber.org

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]