> Same engineers also developed a new constant time scheduler which
> they intent to submit to 2.3. (The change is "too large" for it to
> be accepted into 2.2.)
>
> With "Wake One" and the scheduler changes, Iprobe does show that the
> time spent in small number of scheduler addresses does down dramatically.
> (From 30% to 0.1% of realtime, or some such...)
wake-one alone solves the problem, doesnt it? And we have wake-one in
2.3.3. I'm curious how that patch looks like nevertheless. (i'm just
rather convinced that it cannot be done constant-time without giving up
crucial scheduling features, but i'd be happy to be proved otherwise.
There _are_ ways to make it constant, it just sacrifices things like
proper SMP scheduling.)
-- mingo
-
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/