Re: sched_yield proposals/rationale

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Mark Lord wrote:
> Buytaert_Steven@emc.com wrote:
>>> From: Bill Davidsen
>>>
>>> And having gotten same, are you going to code up what appears to be a
>>> solution, based on this feedback?
>>
>> The feedback was helpful in verifying whether there are any arguments 
>> against my approach. The real proof is in the pudding.
>>
>> I'm running a kernel with these changes, as we speak. Overall system 
>> throughput is about up 20%. With 'system throughput' I mean measured 
>> performance of a rather large (experimental) system. The patch isn't 
>> even 24h old... Also the application latency has improved.
> 
> Cool.  You *do know* that there is a brand new CPU scheduler
> scheduled to replace the current one for the 2.6.22 Kernel, right?
> 
Having tried both nicksched and Con's fair sched on some normal loads, 
as opposed to benchmarks, I sure hope Linus changes his mind about 
having several schedulers in the kernel. The "one perfect and 
self-adjusting scheduler" isn't here yet.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot