On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Borislav Deianov wrote:
> Or you can use Fairsched. Briefly: processes are assigned to nodes,
> each node has a weight. Nodes are guaranteed their "fair share" of the
> CPU. Each node uses the standard scheduler internally. Therefore, no
> matter how antisocial your processes are, you can only hurt your own
> node.
yep - the Linux priority model is just the most obvious one and it does
not try to guarantee any static percentage how CPU time is split up
between processes (in the SCHED_OTHER scheduling class that it). (and does
not know about CPU time assigned to a group of processes at all)
Priorities are rarely used currently. Once massively parallel shared
memory multiuser systems become common (with a CPU count of say more than
100), more finegrained control of CPU resources will likely get desirable.
(and there it will probably be a must).
Ingo
-
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 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 21:00:28 EST