Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:29:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:29:34 -0500 Received: from posta2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:51688 "HELO posta2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:29:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:27:14 +0100 (CET) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: To: Davide Libenzi Cc: Linus Torvalds , lkml , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [patch] scheduler cache affinity improvement for 2.4 kernels 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 Davide, On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Davide Libenzi wrote: > Maybe you missed this : > > http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/mss.html > > where the patch that does this is here : > > http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/lnxsched.html#CPUHist i'm not sure what the patch is trying to achieve, but this part of mcsched-2.4.13-0.4.diff looks incorrect: + prev->cpu_jtime += (jiffies - prev->sched_jtime) + jiffies; (this is "2*jiffies - prev->sched_jtime" which doesnt appear to make much sense - does it?) and your patch adds a scheduling advantage to processes with more cache footprint, which is the completely opposite of what we want. but in any case, changing the goodness() function was not a goal of my patch, i change the granularity of how processes lose their 'effective priority'. 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/