Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:34:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:34:13 -0400 Received: from router-100M.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.17]:52234 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:33:59 -0400 Subject: Re: a quest for a better scheduler To: fabio@chromium.com (Fabio Riccardi) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:35:46 +0100 (BST) Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <3ACA6BF4.9A3F93A2@chromium.com> from "Fabio Riccardi" at Apr 03, 2001 05:33:57 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > for the "normal case" performance see my other message. I did - and with a lot of interest > I agree that a better threading model would surely help in a web server, but to > me this is not an excuse to live up with a broken scheduler. The problem has always been - alternative scheduler, crappier performance for 2 tasks running (which is most boxes). If your numbers are right then the HP patch is working as well for 1 or 2 tasks too > Unless we want to maintain the position tha the only way to achieve good > performance is to embed server applications in the kernel, some minimal help > should be provided to goodwilling user applications :) Indeed. I'd love to see you beat tux entirely in userspace. It proves the rest of the API for the kernel is right - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/