Re: Is it bad to have lots of sleeping tasks?

[Kurt Garloff]

--b/Q3JWIUAuLE0ZFy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 01:13:04PM -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:
> > Linus scheduler is pretty dire beyond about 8 runnable threads, but very
> > good below that. It also has a refresh loop that is O(n) tasks, which is
> > strange, and actually looks easily to eliminate.
>=20
> So why not do it?  Or implement a nicer scheduler?  There are many good
> ones.  There are o(1) schedulers that provide much better proportional
> sharing.  They scale and also perform well even in "few running processes"
> case.  They are also not hard to implement (I once implemented such a
> scheduler with 100 lines of patch, and that fitted in the existing Linux
> runqueue framework).  What's the resistence to scheduler changes?

Expect Larry to jump on you.

Regards,
--=20
Kurt Garloff  <[e-mail]>                          Eindhoven, NL
GPG key: See mail header, key servers         Linux kernel development
SuSE GmbH, Nuernberg, DE                                SCSI, Security

--b/Q3JWIUAuLE0ZFy
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7hrnRxmLh6hyYd04RAnI4AJ4/IG/XyfwEJq3IJO/GELr3KVYhCwCdEPp7
tWNAlUafgXbP63IU+zGshZo=
=BAF5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--b/Q3JWIUAuLE0ZFy--