Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:25:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:25:40 -0500 Received: from rj.sgi.com ([204.94.215.100]:38556 "EHLO rj.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:25:35 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:25:32 -0800 From: Paul Jackson To: Ingo Molnar cc: Erich Focht , linux-kernel , Matthew Dobson , lse-tech , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] O(1) scheduler set_cpus_allowed for non-current tasks 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 Ingo wrote: > The concept is the following: there are new per-CPU > system threads (so-called migration threads) that handle > a per-runqueue 'migration queue'. Thanks, Ingo. Could you, or some other kind soul who understands this, to explain why the following alternative for migrating proceses currently running on some other cpu wouldn't have been better (simpler and sufficient): - add another variable to the task_struct, say "eviction_notice" - when it comes time to tell a process to migrate, set this eviction_notice (and then continue without waiting) - rely on code that fires each time slice on the cpu currently hosting the evicted process to notice the eviction notice and serve it (migrate the process instead of giving it yet another slice). -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.650.933.1373 - 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/