Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP

Vincent Pelletier wrote:

Maybe I was completely wrong with my assumption that one running processalways has an impact of 1, which would have make the scheduler underestimatethe load on one cpu and put too many processes on it, without moving themafterward.

Yes, maybe that's the problem, since in my bench, one process takes only 40% ofthe CPU.


Cheers,

--
Ludovic DROLEZ                              Linbox / Free&ALter Soft
www.linbox.com www.linbox.org	              tel: +33 3 87 50 87 90
152 rue de Grigy - Technopole Metz 2000                   57070 METZ
-
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/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
  - From: "Antonio Vargas" <[email protected]>

References:
- [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
  - From: Vincent Pelletier <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
  - From: "Antonio Vargas" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
  - From: Ludovic Drolez <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
  - From: Vincent Pelletier <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.5 for Linux 2.6.17 (with probe management)
Next by Date: 2.6.1[78] page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x20
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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]