From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264913AbTLWBYx (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:24:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264966AbTLWBYx (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:24:53 -0500 Received: from c211-28-147-198.thoms1.vic.optusnet.com.au ([211.28.147.198]:60110 "EHLO mail.kolivas.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264913AbTLWBYw (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:24:52 -0500 From: Con Kolivas To: Nick Piggin , "Nakajima, Jun" Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.0 batch scheduling, HT aware Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:24:48 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 Cc: linux kernel mailing list References: <200312231138.21734.kernel@kolivas.org> <3FE79626.1060105@cyberone.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3FE79626.1060105@cyberone.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200312231224.49069.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:11, Nick Piggin wrote: > I think this patch is much too ugly to get into such an elegant scheduler. > No fault to you Con because its an ugly problem. You're too kind. No it's ugly because of my code but it works for now. > How about this: if a task is "delta" priority points below a task running > on another sibling, move it to that sibling (so priorities via timeslice > start working). I call it active unbalancing! I might be able to make it > fit if there is interest. Other suggestions? I discussed this with Ingo and that's the sort of thing we thought of. Perhaps a relative crossover of 10 dynamic priorities and an absolute crossover of 5 static priorities before things got queued together. This is really only required for the UP HT case. Con