* Mark Lord <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?
we did that too for quite some time in CFS - it was found to be "not
agressive enough" by some folks and "too agressive" by others. Then when
people started bickering over this we added these two simple corner
cases - switchable via a flag. (minimum agression and maximum agression)
> (I really don't know the proper terminology to use here, but hopefully
> Ingo can translate that).
the terminology you used is perfectly fine.
> Thanks Ingo -- I *really* like this scheduler!
heh, thanks :) For which workload does it make the biggest difference
for you? (and compared to what other scheduler you used before? 2.6.22?)
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]
