Con Kolivas wrote:
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 10:01, Peter Williams wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 09:04, Peter Williams wrote:
Al Boldi wrote:
Also, different schedulers per cpu could be rather useful.
Peter Williams wrote:
I think that would be dangerous. However, different schedulers per
cpuset might make sense but it involve a fair bit of work.
I'm curious. How do you think different schedulers per cpu would be
useful?
I don't but I think they MIGHT make sense for cpusets e.g. one set with
a scheduler targeted at interactive tasks and another targeted at server
tasks. NB the emphasis on might.
I am curious as to Al's answer since he asked for the feature.
OK.
It would be
easy for me to modify the staircase cpu scheduler to allow the interactive
and compute modes be set on a per-cpu basis if that was desired. For that to
be helpful of course you'd have to manually set affinity for the tasks or
logins you wanted to run on each cpu(s).
Yes, I agree that it would not be a good idea for CPUs that are sharing
(via load balancing) the same set of tasks to have different schedulers
or policy which is why I suggested only doing it at the cpuset level.
Peter
--
Peter Williams [email protected]
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
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]
