On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 01:13:04PM -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:
> > Linus scheduler is pretty dire beyond about 8 runnable threads, but very
> > good below that. It also has a refresh loop that is O(n) tasks, which is
> > strange, and actually looks easily to eliminate.
>
> So why not do it? Or implement a nicer scheduler? There are many good
> ones. There are o(1) schedulers that provide much better proportional
> sharing. They scale and also perform well even in "few running processes"
> case. They are also not hard to implement (I once implemented such a
> scheduler with 100 lines of patch, and that fitted in the existing Linux
> runqueue framework). What's the resistence to scheduler changes?
Expect Larry to jump on you.
Regards,
-- Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de> Eindhoven, NL GPG key: See mail header, key servers Linux kernel development SuSE GmbH, Nuernberg, DE SCSI, Security
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 21:00:14 EST