Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 08:47:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 08:47:22 -0500 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:16009 "HELO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 08:47:09 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 16:44:32 +0100 (CET) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: David Lang , Dieter =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=FCtzel?= , Linux Kernel List Subject: Re: [announce] [patch] ultra-scalable O(1) SMP and UP scheduler In-Reply-To: <20020104143659.I1561@athlon.random> 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 Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > + { > + int counter = current->counter; > + p->counter = (counter + 1) >> 1; > + current->counter = counter >> 1; > + p->policy &= ~SCHED_YIELD; > + current->policy |= SCHED_YIELD; > current->need_resched = 1; > + } yep - good, this means that applications got some fair testing already. What i mentioned in the previous email is that on SMP this solution is still not the optimal one under the current scheduler, because the wakeup of the child process might end up pushing the process to another (idle) CPU - worsening the COW effect with SMP-interlocking effects. This is why i introduced wake_up_forked_process() that knows about this distinction and keeps the child on the current CPU. 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/