Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:50:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:50:47 -0400 Received: from atlrel2.hp.com ([156.153.255.202]:61429 "HELO atlrel2.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:49:17 -0400 Message-ID: <3ACB4278.2E4F48C0@fc.hp.com> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:49:12 -0600 From: Khalid Aziz X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.18 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Hubertus Franke , mingo@elte.hu, Mike Kravetz , Fabio Riccardi , Linux Kernel List Subject: Re: a quest for a better scheduler In-Reply-To: <20010404171227.W20911@athlon.random> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 10:03:10AM -0400, Hubertus Franke wrote: > > I understand the dilemma that the Linux scheduler is in, namely satisfy > > the low end at all cost. [..] > > We can satisfy the low end by making the numa scheduler at compile time (that's > what I did in my patch at least). > > Andrea I fully agree with this approach. It would be very hard to design a scheduler that performs equally well on a UP machine running couple of processes and a NUMA machine. These two cases represent the two ends of spectrum. The two schedulers should be separate IMO and one of them should be selected at compile time. -- Khalid ==================================================================== Khalid Aziz Linux Development Laboratory (970)898-9214 Hewlett-Packard khalid@fc.hp.com Fort Collins, CO - 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/