From: Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:45:33 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200607260745.33264.a1426z@gawab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200607251940.k6PJeWbu023928@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:27:14 +0300, Al Boldi said:
> > Peter Williams wrote:
> > > It's probably not a good idea to have different schedulers managing
> > > the same resource. The way to do different scheduling per process is
> > > to use the scheduling policy mechanism i.e. SCHED_FIFO, SCHED_RR, etc.
> > > (possibly extended) within each scheduler. On the other hand, on an
> > > SMP system, having a different scheduler on each run queue (or sub set
> > > of queues) might be interesting :-).
> >
> > What's wrong with multiple run-queues on UP?
>
> On an SMP system, you can have one CPU doing one class of scheduling (long
> timeslice for computational, for example), while another CPU is dedicated
> to doing RT scheduling, and so on. It's not clear to me that "different
> classes per CPU" makes any real sense on a UP....
Conceptually there should be no difference between UP and MP.
Think HyperThreading.
Thanks!
--
Al
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-07-26 4:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-07-24 15:57 [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2 Al Boldi
2006-07-25 2:44 ` Peter Williams
2006-07-25 4:57 ` Al Boldi
2006-07-25 5:44 ` Peter Williams
2006-07-25 18:27 ` Al Boldi
2006-07-25 19:40 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2006-07-26 4:45 ` Al Boldi [this message]
2006-07-26 11:28 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2006-07-26 0:51 ` Peter Williams
2006-07-26 4:45 ` Al Boldi
2006-07-26 5:14 ` Peter Williams
2006-07-26 11:23 ` Al Boldi
2006-07-26 12:34 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2006-07-26 14:04 ` Al Boldi
2006-07-27 1:32 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-07-21 3:24 Peter Williams
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=200607260745.33264.a1426z@gawab.com \
--to=a1426z@gawab.com \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
/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