Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:23:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:23:18 -0500 Received: from [208.129.208.52] ([208.129.208.52]:8452 "EHLO xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:23:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 16:31:32 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: Ingo Molnar cc: Linus Torvalds , , 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 On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote: [...] I finally took a look at the patch and i think that it completely change dynamic priority assignments. Dynamic priorities will only 1) increase 2) drop to zero I'm not sure what could be the effect of this on the scheduler behavior. The patch, as is, has the advantage over CPU history to not add an extra "if () {}" inside the goodness() function but, without doing something like : weight = p->counter; +if (p->processor != this_cpu) + weight -= p->timer_ticks; you're going to take poor SMP tasks moving decisions, expecially with the actual : static inline void add_to_runqueue(struct task_struct * p) { list_add(&p->run_list, &runqueue_head); nr_running++; } that inserts tasks at runqueue head ( it'll be the first that will be picked up ). With this extra "if () {}" you're going to have the same fast path cost of the CpuHistory patch. - Davide - 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/