Re: a quest for a better scheduler

Mike Kravetz (mkravetz@sequent.com)
Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:47:00 -0700

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 05:18:03PM -0700, Fabio Riccardi wrote:
>
> I have measured the HP and not the "scalability" patch because the two do more
> or less the same thing and give me the same performance advantages, but the
> former is a lot simpler and I could port it with no effort on any recent
> kernel.

Actually, there is a significant difference between the HP patch and
the one I developed. In the HP patch, if there is a schedulable task
on the 'local' (current CPU) runqueue it will ignore runnable tasks on
other (remote) runqueues. In the multi-queue patch I developed, the
scheduler always attempts to make the same global scheduling decisions
as the current scheduler.

-- 
Mike Kravetz                                 mkravetz@sequent.com
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
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/