Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-10,: Re: [uPATCH] sched.c change; snappy_response++

# Re: [uPATCH] sched.c change; snappy_response++

Wolfram Gloger (wmglo@dent.med.uni-muenchen.de)
10 Mar 1998 15:13:28 -0000

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Juergen Kreileder: "Re: [2.1.89] process hanging in diskread"
- Previous message: Rik van Riel: "[uPATCH] Re: 2.1.89 broken?"
- Maybe in reply to: Rik van Riel: "[uPATCH] sched.c change; snappy_response++"
- Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: [uPATCH] sched.c change; snappy_response++"

> - --- linux/kernel/sched.c.orig Mon Mar 9 20:58:54 1998
> +++ linux/kernel/sched.c Mon Mar 9 20:59:22 1998
> @@ -231,6 +231,7 @@
> /* .. and a slight advantage to the current process */
> if (p == prev)
> weight += 1;
> + weight += p->priority;
> }
>
> return weight;

When considering such a change, please also consider this one (for
exploiting the fast thread context switch somewhat better):

@@ -277,8 +277,8 @@
weight += PROC_CHANGE_PENALTY;
#endif
- /* .. and a slight advantage to the current process */
- if (p == prev)
+ /* .. and a slight advantage to the current thread */
+ if (p->mm == prev->mm)
weight += 1;
}
It was originally proposed by Linus and Stephen Tweedie almost two
years (!) ago. (I can dig out the reference if wanted.)

Regards,
Wolfram.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

- Next message: Juergen Kreileder: "Re: [2.1.89] process hanging in diskread"
- Previous message: Rik van Riel: "[uPATCH] Re: 2.1.89 broken?"
- Maybe in reply to: Rik van Riel: "[uPATCH] sched.c change; snappy_response++"
- Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: [uPATCH] sched.c change; snappy_response++"