Re: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention

[Con Kolivas]

On Friday 02 June 2006 19:17, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> What about the part in dependent_sleeper() being so bully and actively
> resched other low priority sibling tasks?  I think it would be better
> to just let the tasks running on sibling CPU to finish its current time
> slice and then let the backoff logic to kick in.

That would defeat the purpose of smt nice if the higher priority task starts 
after the lower priority task is running on its sibling cpu.

-- 
-ck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/