On 9/19/06, Ludovic Drolez <[email protected]> wrote:
Vincent Pelletier <vincent.plr <at> wanadoo.fr> writes:
> I'll do some tests soon to see which version gives better performance at a
> higher level than just process migration cost - if different at all.
I think that your patch should improve the performance because process
migrations are expensive (cache miss) and should be avoided when not
really necessary.
Cheers,
Ludovic.
A variant on this theme would be (not tested or somewhat, just a
random idea for considering):
1. find if the process is a cpu-hog, if not then ignore
2. find somehow how much time has this process on it's current cpu
3. then, instead of always substracting 1 from th current load on the
current cpu, substract for example 1...0 when running from 0 to 60
seconds... this way cpu hogs would only rotate slowly?
in code:
number_to_sub_from_queue_load = (256 - min(256,
time_from_last_change_of_cpu)) >> 8;
somehow managing to get fixedpoint loadlevels on the runqueues would
make this work better....
--
Greetz, Antonio Vargas aka winden of network
http://network.amigascne.org/
[email protected]
[email protected]
Every day, every year
you have to work
you have to study
you have to scene.
-
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]
