Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 21:04:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 21:03:52 -0500 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:9620 "HELO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 5 Jan 2002 21:03:45 -0500 Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 05:01:12 +0100 (CET) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: To: Davide Libenzi Cc: Linus Torvalds , lkml , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [announce] [patch] ultra-scalable O(1) SMP and UP scheduler 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 Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Davide Libenzi wrote: > Ingo, you don't need that many queues, 32 are more than sufficent. If > you look at the distribution you'll see that it matters ( for > interactive feel ) only the very first ( top ) queues, while lower > ones can very easily tollerate a FIFO pickup w/out bad feelings. I have no problem with using 32 queues as long as we keep the code flexible enough to increase the queue length if needed. I think we should make it flexible and not restrict ourselves to something like word size. (with this i'm not suggesting that you meant this, i'm just trying to make sure.) I saw really good (behavioral, latency, not performance) effects of the longer queue under high load, but this must be weighed against the cache footprint of the queues. 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/