On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > avoiding a TLB flush. I did not benchmarks to check it's better but +1 is
> > way too low IMHO. Also it make a lots of sense to make it a per-arch thing
>
> If you increase it above +1 bad things happen and tasks get
> starved unfairly at least from testing with 2.1.x before 2.2. I
> dont think anything has changd which will have altered this.
It might be an idea, however, to increase this bonus to
the number of processors in the system. That way we can
enjoy a little more throughput on an smp system without
the penalty of unresponsiveness.
A few other things have changed since 2.1.x too, maybe
the patch makes sense on up systems too, but I doubt
that the value should be as large as Andrea puts it...
Andrea, have you tested your patch on a loaded UP system
and tested the interactive feel of the system under X?
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 : Sat Jan 15 2000 - 21:00:13 EST