Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:00:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:59:50 -0500 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([208.129.208.51]:34831 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:59:38 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:04:59 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: Ingo Molnar cc: Mike Kravetz , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel , Anton Blanchard , george anzinger , Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [patch] O(1) scheduler, -G1, 2.5.2-pre10, 2.4.17 (fwd) 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 Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote: > indeed. The question is, should we migrate processes around just to get > 100% fairness in 'top' output? The (implicit) cost of a task migration > (caused by the destruction & rebuilding of cache state) can be 10 > milliseconds easily on a system with big caches. 10 ms is exactly what i've observed while i was coding the BMQS balance code. Leaving a cpu idle for more than 10ms will make real tests like kernel builds to suffer performance degradation. By using 10ms i always got the same time of the standard scheduler. - 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/