Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 18:33:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 18:33:36 -0400 Received: from cs181196.pp.htv.fi ([213.243.181.196]:42629 "EHLO cs181196.pp.htv.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 18:33:24 -0400 Message-ID: <3BC0D83D.5E8648FC@welho.com> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 01:33:33 +0300 From: Mika Liljeberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Davide Libenzi CC: george anzinger , Ingo Oeser , Alan Cox , Benjamin LaHaise , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Context switch times In-Reply-To: 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 Davide Libenzi wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Mika Liljeberg wrote: > > > How the balance is determined is another issue, though. I basically > > proposed summing the time slices consumed by tasks executing on a single > > CPU and using that as the comparison value. Davide Libenzi, on the other > > hand, simply proposed using the number of tasks. > > CPU based number of __running__ tasks. That's what I meant, sorry for not making it clear. I suppose in practise this would amount to using the number of _CPU bound_ running tasks per CPU, since the non-CPU bound tasks would likely be waiting rather than running? This would then be essentially equivalent to (and simpler than) my proposal, i.e. using the sum of the time slices. > - Davide MikaL - 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/