On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> + {
> + int counter = current->counter;
> + p->counter = (counter + 1) >> 1;
> + current->counter = counter >> 1;
> + p->policy &= ~SCHED_YIELD;
> + current->policy |= SCHED_YIELD;
> current->need_resched = 1;
> + }
yep - good, this means that applications got some fair testing already.
What i mentioned in the previous email is that on SMP this solution is
still not the optimal one under the current scheduler, because the wakeup
of the child process might end up pushing the process to another (idle)
CPU - worsening the COW effect with SMP-interlocking effects. This is why
i introduced wake_up_forked_process() that knows about this distinction
and keeps the child on the current CPU.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:25 EST