From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964944AbWDCX34 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:29:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964945AbWDCX34 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:29:56 -0400 Received: from mail11.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.192]:15489 "EHLO mail11.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964944AbWDCX3z (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:29:55 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.3.1 for 2.6.16-rc5 Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 09:29:47 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: Peter Williams , Al Boldi References: <200604031459.51542.a1426z@gawab.com> <4431A9E7.40406@bigpond.net.au> In-Reply-To: <4431A9E7.40406@bigpond.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200604040929.48198.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 04 April 2006 09:04, Peter Williams wrote: > Al Boldi wrote: > > Is there a module to autotune these values according to cpu/mem/ctxt > > performance? I think you're thinking of Jake's genetic algorithms (separate patch). They tune the zaphod scheduler but bear in mind the limitation of such an algorithm is they can only tune for one workload which means that if you have two workloads running concurrently with different requirements, the other will suffer. > > Also, different schedulers per cpu could be rather useful. > > Peter Williams wrote: > I think that would be dangerous. However, different schedulers per > cpuset might make sense but it involve a fair bit of work. I'm curious. How do you think different schedulers per cpu would be useful? Cheers, Con