public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: "J.A. Magallon" <jamagallon@able.es>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>, Matthias Hanisch <mjh@vr-web.de>,
	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@csd.uu.se>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] 2.5.2 scheduler code for 2.4.18-pre1 ( was 2.5.2-pre performance degradation on an old 486 )
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:37:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020107153749.D2481@athlon.random> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020106112129.D8673@suse.de> <Pine.LNX.4.40.0201061554410.933-100000@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com> <20020107023854.F1561@athlon.random> <20020107153533.A12242@werewolf.able.es>
In-Reply-To: <20020107153533.A12242@werewolf.able.es>; from jamagallon@able.es on Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 03:35:33PM +0100

On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 03:35:33PM +0100, J.A. Magallon wrote:
> 
> On 20020107 Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> >yes please (feel free to CC me on the answers), I'd really like to
> >reduce the scheduler O(N) overhead to the number of the running tasks,
> >rather than doing the recalculate all over the processes in the machine.
> >O(1) scheduler would be even better of course, but the below would
> >ensure not to hurt the 1 task running case, and it's way simpler to
> >check for correctness (so it's easier to include it as a start).
> >
> 
> It looks like you all are going to turn the scheduler upside-down.
> Hmm, as a non-kernel-hacker observer from the world outside, could I
> make a suggestion ?
> Is it easy to split the thing in steps:
> - Move from single-queue to per-cpu-queue, with just the same algorithm
>   that is running now for per-queue scheduling.

I don't mind about SMP (I don't think SMP scalability of the scheduler
is that bad to require this change in 2.4), I'd only like an UP (or SMP
as well of course) box not to follow a linked list of 2k tasks during a
reschedule if only 1 is running all the time.

> - Get that running for 2.18.18 and 2.5.2
> - Then start to play with the per-queue scheduling algorithm:
> 	* better O(n)
> 	* O(1)
> 	* O(1) with different queues for RT and non RT
> 	etc...
> 
> Is it easy enough or are both steps so related that can not be split ?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> (a linux user that tries experimental kernels and is seeing them grow
> like mushrooms in latest weeks...)
> 
> -- 
> J.A. Magallon                           #  Let the source be with you...        
> mailto:jamagallon@able.es
> Mandrake Linux release 8.2 (Cooker) for i586
> Linux werewolf 2.4.18-pre1-beo #1 SMP Fri Jan 4 02:25:59 CET 2002 i686


Andrea

  reply	other threads:[~2002-01-07 14:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-01-05  0:51 2.5.2-pre performance degradation on an old 486 Mikael Pettersson
2002-01-05  8:25 ` Matthias Hanisch
2002-01-05 23:10   ` Davide Libenzi
2002-01-06 10:21     ` Jens Axboe
2002-01-06 10:33       ` Andre Hedrick
2002-01-06 23:59       ` [patch] 2.5.2 scheduler code for 2.4.18-pre1 ( was 2.5.2-pre performance degradation on an old 486 ) Davide Libenzi
2002-01-07  1:38         ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-01-07 14:35           ` J.A. Magallon
2002-01-07 14:37             ` Andrea Arcangeli [this message]
2002-01-07  7:32         ` Jens Axboe
2002-01-07 18:10           ` Davide Libenzi
2002-01-07  7:22     ` 2.5.2-pre performance degradation on an old 486 Matthias Hanisch
2002-01-07 16:43       ` Linus Torvalds
2002-01-07 18:31       ` Davide Libenzi
2002-01-07 21:43         ` Matthias Hanisch
2002-01-07 22:17           ` Davide Libenzi
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-01-07  1:33 [patch] 2.5.2 scheduler code for 2.4.18-pre1 ( was 2.5.2-pre performance degradation on an old 486 ) Mikael Pettersson
2002-01-07  2:36 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-01-07  7:33   ` Jens Axboe
2002-01-07 18:12     ` 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=20020107153749.D2481@athlon.random \
    --to=andrea@suse.de \
    --cc=axboe@suse.de \
    --cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
    --cc=jamagallon@able.es \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mikpe@csd.uu.se \
    --cc=mjh@vr-web.de \
    --cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
    /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