From: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Proposal For A More Scalable Scheduler ...
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:04:29 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20011030150429.E490@mikef-linux.matchmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20011030034058.B21884@mikef-linux.matchmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.40.0110300900190.1495-100000@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.40.0110300900190.1495-100000@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com>
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 09:02:54AM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 09:38:07PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > > 2) My Linux Scheduler Stuff Page:
> > > http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/lnxsched.html
> > >
> >
> > Anyone know if this is preempt safe? It's using processor specific lists,
> > and might not be.
>
> Processor specific lists ?
> The mss scheduler patch in for x86 but it's trivial ( about 10 lines of
> code ) to port it to other arcs.
>
>From the origional:
The proposed implementation uses a runqueue-per-cpu scheduler where,
inside each CPU, the scheduler code is exactly the same of the current one.
The big runqueue_lock has been substituted by locks that protects CPU run
queues.
By having separate run queues the length/cost of the goodness() loop
has been divided by N ( N == number of CPUs ) and the presence of
per-runqueue locks gives the scheduler a full parallelism between the CPUs.
-------------
Looking at this again, it probably is preempt safe... I probably merged it
wrong.
I'll try to fit it into my next kernel...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-10-30 23:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-10-30 5:38 [PATCH][RFC] Proposal For A More Scalable Scheduler Davide Libenzi
2001-10-30 11:40 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-10-30 17:02 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-10-30 23:04 ` Mike Fedyk [this message]
2001-10-30 23:14 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-10-30 23:44 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-10-31 0:01 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-10-30 14:28 ` Hubertus Franke
2001-10-30 17:19 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-10-30 16:29 ` Hubertus Franke
2001-10-30 18:50 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-10-30 16:52 ` Hubertus Franke
2001-10-30 19:08 ` [Lse-tech] " Mike Kravetz
2001-10-30 19:19 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-10-31 0:11 ` [Lse-tech] " Mike Kravetz
2001-10-31 1:06 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-10-31 5:29 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-10-31 4:45 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-10-31 5:50 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-10-31 17:07 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-10-31 17:59 ` Davide Libenzi
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=20011030150429.E490@mikef-linux.matchmail.com \
--to=mfedyk@matchmail.com \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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