Re: scheduling
Alexander Kjeldaas (astor@guardian.no)
Fri, 1 May 1998 18:30:42 +0200
On Fri, May 01, 1998 at 10:14:48AM -0400, Andrew J. Anderson wrote:
>
> > Perhaps we could have 3 levels of the "QNX scheduler" and run
> > the normal timesharing scheduler within each of those. If there
> > isn't a standard name for it already, I suggest "priority bands".
>
> I have been working on a feedback multilevel scheduler with 40 levels to
> make it easier to incorporate with the kernel and user utilities. I
> haven't touched it for a while, but it was starting to work, but kept
> running into problems remoing things from the run queue. I had ambitions
> at one time of making it a tunable scheduler, but I'm still focusing on
> stability for now. I can probably generate some patches against 2.0.33 if
> there's interest.
>
If you are thinking of a new scheduler, would it be possible to design
one that doesn't have to traverse the task_list as much as the current
one? The current scheduler is O(n) in the number of processes. A fix
to that would help the kernel ultimately end up being independent of
the number of processes.
astor
--
Alexander Kjeldaas, Guardian Networks AS, Trondheim, Norway
http://www.guardian.no/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu