On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 20:16 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Thursday 13 April 2006 17:41, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > This way also allowed me to eliminate the interactive agony of an array
> > switch when at 100% cpu. Seems to work well. No more agony, only tiny
> > pin pricks.
> >
>
> Comments.
>
> > +repeat:
> > + while ((idx = find_next_bit(bitmap, MAX_PRIO, idx)) < MAX_PRIO) {
>
> ...
>
> > + goto repeat;
>
> ...
>
> > + if (rq->nr_running > 1)
> > + requeue_starving(rq, now);
>
> An O(n) function in scheduler_tick is probably not the way to tackle this.
Why not? It's one quick-like-bunny stop per occupied queue per slice
completion.
-Mike
-
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]
