Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 01:59:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 01:59:23 -0500 Received: from [202.135.142.196] ([202.135.142.196]:39945 "EHLO haven.ozlabs.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 01:59:22 -0500 From: Rusty Russell To: Davide Libenzi Cc: timothy.covell@ashavan.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Cami , Ingo Molnar , 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: Your message of "Sat, 12 Jan 2002 12:44:30 -0800." Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:59:33 +1100 Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message y ou write: > > Aside from the cache utilization, this is not really "fair" -- the > > problem is, the current design of load_balance (which is quite good) > > just won't throw the tasks around so readily. What could be done -- > > cleanly -- to make this better? > > My opinion is: if it can be solved with no more than 20 lines of code > let's do it, otherwise let's see what kind of catastrophe will happen by > allowing such behavior. Agree. Anyone who really has 3 CPU hogs on a 2 CPU machine, *and* never runs two more tasks to perturb the system, *and* notices that one runs twice the speed of the other two, *and* cares about fairness (ie. not RC5 etc), feel free to Email abuse to me. Not Ingo, he has real work to do 8) Cheers! Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/