On 29 Jan 2000, Dimitris Michailidis wrote:
> This looks like an attempt to implement temporal affinity. Here's an
> alternative idea for this (I haven't implemented it and I don't have
> any performance experience with it, it's just an idea):
Indeed, it is partly meant for temporal affinity and
partly to better seperate out the priorities (so that
interactive processes get less interference from any
compiles in the background, etc...
My first tests seem to indicate that it works pretty
well for both things.
> When you switch from process A to process B, if process B has a
> very short avg_slice retain ownership of A by leaving its
> has_cpu=1 and make a note of it in some local state (probably
> schedule_data). This keeps other CPUs from taking A away. When
> process B gives up the CPU (and we expect this will happen in a
> very short amount of time) we can switch back to A in O(1) time.
> Most of this can be done in __schedule_tail().
> Comments?
Sounds like an excellent idea. In fact, I've already worked
out most of the details for this yesterday, but wanted to wait
for comments on this part of the patch first :)
regards,
Rik
-- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 21:00:24 EST