Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 03:30:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 03:30:41 -0400 Received: from chiara.elte.hu ([157.181.150.200]:23564 "HELO chiara.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 03:30:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 08:28:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: To: Mike Kravetz Cc: , Fabio Riccardi , Linux Kernel List Subject: Re: a quest for a better scheduler In-Reply-To: <20010403154314.E1054@w-mikek2.sequent.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Mike Kravetz wrote: > Our 'priority queue' implementation uses almost the same goodness > function as the current scheduler. The main difference between our > 'priority queue' scheduler and the current scheduler is the structure > of the runqueue. We break up the single runqueue into a set of > priority based runqueues. The 'goodness' of a task determines what > sub-queue a task is placed in. Tasks with higher goodness values are > placed in higher priority queues than tasks with lower goodness > values. [...] we are talking about the same thing, re-read my mail. this design assumes that 'goodness' is constant in the sense that it does not depend on the previous process. and no, your are not using the same goodness() function, you omitted the prev->mm == next->mm component to goodness(), due to this design limitation. Ingo - 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/