Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Mark Lord <[email protected]> wrote:
That's not the same thing at all. I think that David is suggesting
that the reinsertion logic should pretend that the task used up all of
the CPU time it was offered in the slot leading up to the
sched_yield() call.
we have tried this too, and this has problems too (artificial inflation
of the vruntime metric and a domino effects on other portions of the
scheduler). So this is a worse solution than what we have now. (and this
has all been pointed out in past discussions in which David
participated. I'll certainly reply to any genuinely new idea.)
..
Ack. And what of the suggestion to try to ensure that a yielding task
simply not end up as the very next one chosen to run? Maybe by swapping
it with another (adjacent?) task in the tree if it comes out on top again?
(I really don't know the proper terminology to use here,
but hopefully Ingo can translate that).
That's probably already been covered too, but are the prior conclusions still valid?
Thanks Ingo -- I *really* like this scheduler!
--
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]
