* Ting Yang <[email protected]> wrote:
> My name is Ting Yang, a graduate student from UMASS. I am currently
> studying the linux scheduler and virtual memory manager to solve some
> page swapping problems. I am very excited with the new scheduler CFS.
> After I read through your code, I think that you might be interested
> in reading this paper:
thanks for your detailed analysis - it was very interesting!
> Based on my understanding, adopting something like EEVDF in CFS
> should not be very difficult given their similarities, although I do
> not have any idea on how this impacts the load balancing for SMP. Does
> this worth a try?
It would definitely be interesting to try! I dont think it should
negatively impact load balancing on SMP. The current fork-time behavior
of CFS is really just a first-approximation thing, and what you propose
seems to make more sense to me too because it preserves the fluidity of
fairness. (I'd probably apply your patch even if there was no directly
measurable impact on workloads, because the more natural approaches tend
to be more maintainable in the long run.)
So by all means, please feel free to do a patch for this.
> Sorry for such a long email :-)
it made alot of sense and was very useful :-)
Ingo
-
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]
