From: Hubertus F. <fr...@us...> - 2001-02-09 22:29:20
|
Wrong, it was comparing oranges with oranges :-) Why don't we start hashing out a design. I guess we all believe that the MQ is an excellent start. I believe our pooling makes sense but we need to think this through. So let's start out with the design that I through out that takes MQ slightly away from the strict functional equivalence. Let's poo-poo it and hopefully we can come up with something better. For instance how about the idea of Jun to look at last_run as a additional base to decide affinity ? Hubertus Franke Enterprise Linux Group (Mgr), Linux Technology Center (Member Scalability) , OS-PIC (Chair) email: fr...@us... (w) 914-945-2003 (fax) 914-945-4425 TL: 862-2003 "John Hawkes" <ha...@en...> on 02/09/2001 05:12:20 PM To: "Jun Nakajima" <ju...@sc...>, Hubertus Franke/Watson/IBM@IBMUS cc: "Mike Kravetz" <mkr...@se...>, <lse...@li...> Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] cpus_allowed in multi-queue scheduler It was my impression that the rationale for having the MQ scheduler maintain existing behavior was primarily to allow for a closer apples-to-apples comparison with the existing scheduler, and secondarily because of a concern that some people would equate *different* behavior with *inferior* behavior. Is there anyone in the Linux Community who believes that the current scheduler is perfect? John Hawkes ha...@en... |