OK. This is a valid point against Richard's proposed changes.
> Long runqueues might be a problem on other OSs, but not on Linux. (or if
> yes, please show me the case)
> (barring one case, when there are alot of CPU-bound processes around, in
> which case those processes waste so much cache resources anyway)
That's OK, since they still run their full timeslice
before having their priority restored. Two CPU-bound
tasks thrash the cache just as much ast ten.
The problem with this is that interactive processes
also get their priority restored slower when there
are a lot of CPU-bound processes running. It seems
like that is fixed with my patch (which should be a
little more efficient, but I'd really like to keep
the slow-recharging for niced processes).
Knowing you, I think you might actually be interested
to take a look at my scheduler changes and make it
more efficient (it avoids the for_each_task() and adds
the cost in another place; it could probably be a little
faster).
Rik.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl |
| Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/