Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [PATCH 0/9] CPU controller

[Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>]

On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 20:09 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Friday 28 April 2006 17:46, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 09:11 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 09:56 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> > > > I'm also pretty sure, that CPU controller based on timeslice tricks
> > > > behaves poorly on burstable load patterns as well and with interactive
> > > > tasks. So before commiting I propose to perform a good testing on
> > > > different load patterns.
> > >
> > > Yes, it can only react very slowly.
> >
> > Actually, this might not be that much of a problem.  I know I can
> > traverse queue heads periodically very cheaply.  Traversing both active
> > and expired arrays to requeue starving tasks once every 100ms costs max
> > 4usecs (3GHz P4) for a typical distribution.
> 
> How many tasks? Your function was O(n) so the more tasks the longer that max 
> value was.

Nope.  It's not O(tasks), it's O(occupied_queues).  Occupied queues is
generally not a large number.

	-Mike

-
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/