Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-23,: Re: New schedule() and semaphore implementation ...

# Re: New schedule() and semaphore implementation ...

Ingo Molnar (mingo@chiara.csoma.elte.hu)
Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:37:45 +0200 (CEST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Werner Almesberger: "Re: Devfs, was Re: Migrating to larger numbers"
- Previous message: Riley Williams: "Re: generalizing khttpd"

On Sat, 12 Jun 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> You can avoid starvation even with FIFO behaviour. BTW I noticed now that
> currently (in 2.3.6) we are doing a _FIFO_ wakeup even in accept(2)
> [...]

i've left it intentionally at FIFO for the time being. Once all the
networking (and other) SMP improvements have stabilized i have planned to
benchmark both variants under RL load and pick the better performing one
(or FIFO if they perform equally). Both FIFO and LIFO has pros and cons.
(my suspicion too is that LIFO will win, but i'm not taking it for
granted)

-- mingo

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Werner Almesberger: "Re: Devfs, was Re: Migrating to larger numbers"
- Previous message: Riley Williams: "Re: generalizing khttpd"