Re: sched_yield proposals/rationale

[Bill Davidsen]

Mark Lord wrote:
> Buytaert_Steven@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Bill Davidsen
> > >
> > > And having gotten same, are you going to code up what appears to be a
> > > solution, based on this feedback?
> >
> > The feedback was helpful in verifying whether there are any arguments 
> > against my approach. The real proof is in the pudding.
> >
> > I'm running a kernel with these changes, as we speak. Overall system 
> > throughput is about up 20%. With 'system throughput' I mean measured 
> > performance of a rather large (experimental) system. The patch isn't 
> > even 24h old... Also the application latency has improved.
>
> Cool.  You *do know* that there is a brand new CPU scheduler
> scheduled to replace the current one for the 2.6.22 Kernel, right?
Having tried both nicksched and Con's fair sched on some normal loads, 
as opposed to benchmarks, I sure hope Linus changes his mind about 
having several schedulers in the kernel. The "one perfect and 
self-adjusting scheduler" isn't here yet.

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
-
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/