I did this to the scheduler last year - see
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=111404726721747&w=2
It's really interesting!
Have you tested fairness of your solution and it's performance overhead?
What do you mean by fairness, exactly?
I mean how CPU time is distributed not only in the case of CPU hogs. For
example, when 2 tasks do cyclic 1 byte transfer via pipe. one of them is
awake, while another goes to sleep.
If both are in one container, will they behave like a CPU hog?
As for its overhead, I just got it working inside UML. I tried it on
x86_64, but something was wrong with the low-level switching stuff,
and the machine hung whenever a guest scheduler process tried to run.
So, I never got any real measurements.
It's a pity... :( We have fair CPU scheduler in OpenVZ project, so it's
quite an interesting approach for us.
Kirill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
