Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:36:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:36:37 -0400 Received: from chiara.elte.hu ([157.181.150.200]:43020 "HELO chiara.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:36:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:34:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: To: Hubertus Franke Cc: Mike Kravetz , Fabio Riccardi , Linux Kernel List , Subject: Re: a quest for a better scheduler In-Reply-To: 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 Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Hubertus Franke wrote: > Another point to raise is that the current scheduler does a exhaustive > search for the "best" task to run. It touches every process in the > runqueue. this is ok if the runqueue length is limited to a very small > multiple of the #cpus. [...] indeed. The current scheduler handles UP and SMP systems, up to 32 (perhaps 64) CPUs efficiently. Agressively NUMA systems need a different approach anyway in many other subsystems too, Kanoj is doing some scheduler work in that area. but the original claim was that the scheduling of thousands of runnable processes (which is not equal to having thousands of sleeping processes) must perform well - which is a completely different issue. 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/