On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > I just don't find it very interesting. The scheduler is about 100 lines
> > out of however-many-million (3.8 at least count), and doesn't even impact
> > most normal performace very much.
>
> Linus, sharing queue and lock between CPUs for a "thing" highly frequency
> ( schedule()s + wakeup()s ) accessed like the scheduler it's quite ugly
> and it's not that much funny. And it's not only performance wise, it's
> more design wise.
"Design wise" is highly overrated.
Simplicity is _much_ more important, if something commonly is only done a
few hundred times a second. Locking overhead is basically zero for that
case.
> > We'll clearly do per-CPU runqueues or something some day. And that worries
> > me not one whit, compared to thigns like VM and block device layer ;)
>
> Why not 2.5.x ?
Maybe. But read the rest of the sentence. There are issues that are about
a million times more important.
> Moving to 4, 8, 16 CPUs the run queue load, that would be thought insane
> for UP systems, starts to matter.
4 cpu's are "high end" today. We can probably point to tens of thousands
of UP machines for each 4-way out there. The ratio gets even worse for 8,
and 16 CPU's is basically a rounding error.
You have to prioritize. Scheduling overhead is way down the list.
Linus
-
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 : Sun Dec 23 2001 - 21:00:14 EST