> * Davide Libenzi <email@example.com> [20011030 12;19]:"
> > I see the proposed implementation as a decisive cut with the try to have
> > processes instantly moved across CPUs and stuff like na_goodness, etc..
> > Inside each CPU the scheduler is _exactly_ the same as the UP one.
> Well, to that extent that what MQ does as too. We do a local decision
> first and then compare across multiple queues. In the pooling approach
> we limit that global check to some cpus within the proximity.
> I think your CPU Weight history could fit into this model as well.
> We don't care how the local decision was reached.
That's what I don't want to do, at least at every schedule().
The main purpose of the proposed scheduler is to relax process movement
> There is however another problem that you haven't addressed yet, which
> is realtime. As far as I can tell, the realtime semantics require a
> strict ordering with respect to each other and their priorities.
> General approach can be either to limit all RT processes to a single CPU
> or, as we have done, declare a global RT runqueue.
Real time processes, when wakeup up fall calling reschedule_idle() that
will either find the CPU idle or will be reschedule due a favorable
One of balancing scheme I'm using tries to distribute RT tasks evenly on
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Hubertus Franke wrote:
> > > We do a periodic (configurable) call, which has also some drawbacks.
> > > Another thing that needs to be thought about is the metric used
> > > to determine <load> on a queue. For simplicity, runqueue length is
> > > one indication, for fairness, maybe the sum of nice-value would be ok.
> > > We experimented with both and didn't see to much of a difference, however
> > > measuring fairness is difficult to do.
> > Hey, ... that's part of Episode 2 " Balancing the world", where the evil
> > Mr. MoveSoon fight with Hysteresis for the universe domination :)
> Well, one has to be careful, if the system is loaded and processes are
> more long lived rather then come and go, Initial Placement and Idle-Loop
> Load balancing doesn't get you very far with respect to decent load balancing.
> In these kind of scenarios, one needs a feedback system. Trick is to come
> up with an algorithm that is not too intrusive and that is not overcorrecting.
> Take a look at the paper link, where we experimented with some of these
> issues. We tolerated a difference tolerance around the runqueue length.
I'm currently trying an hysteresis approach with a tunable value of
hysteresis to watch at the different performance/behavior.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/