> Global scheduling decisions should be triggered in response of load
> and not at each schedule() run otherwise we're going to introduce a
> that will limit the overall scalability.
Thats correct. Though it beggars the question : who will define
"load-imbalance" and at what granularity ? In the Loadbalancing extensions
to MQ (http://lse.sourceforge.net/scheduling/LB/poolMQ.html) load balancing
is done at a frequency specified at the time the loadbalancing module is
loaded. The parameter can be changed dynamically through a /proc interface.
So we are providing a knob for the user/sysadmin to control the
> My idea about the future of the scheduler is to have a config options
> chose depending upon the machine use.
> By trying to keep a unique scheduler for both UP and MP is like going to
> the same answer to different problems and the scaling factor ( of the
> itself ) on SMP will never improve.
That is true to an extent. It would be convenient for us as scheduler
rewriters to have neatly differentiated classes like UP, SMP, BIG_SMP, NUMA
etc. But it forces all other scheduler-sensitive code to think of each of
these cases separately and is exactly the reason why #ifdef's are
discouraged for critical kernel code like the scheduler.
Its certainly a challenge to provide SMP/NUMA scalability in the scheduler
(and elsewhere in the kernel) without having to resort to an #ifdef.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/