Re: [PATCH] scheduler hints

From: Rick Bressler (bressler@mushroom.ca.boeing.com)
Date: Wed Jun 05 2002 - 20:14:40 EST


> We don't need a scheduler "hint" for this, though. A big loud command
> "bind me to this processor!" would do fine, and in 2.5 we have that:
>
> just have one of the tasks do:
>
> sched_setaffinity(0, sizeof(unsigned long), 1);
> sched_setaffinity(other_guys_pid, sizeof(unsigned long), 1);
>
> and both will be affined to CPU 1.

I think that in some ways they were trying to simplify the code. It is
a bit more complicated to do well from user space. You're talking
dozens to thousands of process pairs, and maybe dozens of CPU's. I
think the idea was that the scheduler has a better idea of what CPU's
are least busy, where to put the processes and indeed should migrate
tasks as necessary. I just does it in pairs. Keep em together is the
idea, rather than keep them in any one specific place, thus the hint.

I note that Gerrit replied also and as I recall he is one of those ex
Sequent guys who really knows this stuff, so I'll bow out in favor of
the experts. :-)

-- 
+--------------------------------------------+ Rick Bressler
|Mushrooms and other fungi have several      | G-4781 (425)342-1554
|important roles in nature.  They help things| Pager 1-800-946-4646
|grow, they are a source of food, they       |         Pin: 1700898
|decompose organic matter and they           | bressler@mushroom.ca.boeing.com
|infect, debilitate and kill organisms.      | Linux: Because a PC is a
+--------------------------------------------+ terrible thing to waste.
-
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 : Fri Jun 07 2002 - 22:00:26 EST