William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:09:28AM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
So what you're saying is that you think dynamic priority (or its
equivalent) should be used for load balancing instead of static priority?
It doesn't do much in other schemes, but when fairness is directly
measured by the dynamic priority, it is a priori more meaningful.
This is not to say the net effect of using it is so different.
I suspect that while it's probably theoretically better it wouldn't make
much difference on a real system (probably not enough to justify any
extra complexity if there were any). The exception might be on systems
where there were lots of CPU intensive tasks that used relatively large
chunks of CPU each time they were runnable which would give the load
balancer a more stable load to try and balance. It might be worth the
extra effort to get it exactly right on those systems. On most normal
systems this isn't the case and the load balancer is always playing
catch up to a constantly changing scenario.
Peter
--
Peter Williams [email protected]
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
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]
