Marc E. Fiuczynski wrote:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/4111
Con Kovalis' work appears relevant to CKRM. I say this because I do not believe the current CKRM cpu scheduler will be the final/only one that will work with CKRM.
Hubertus & Haoqiang, what are your thoughts on this?
Marc
Marc, I just looked at the patch. In principle, I have no objection in going with something like that way.
There is some minor overhead ( function call overheads ), but they should be negligable.
If something like this gets accepted into the mainline, we could move the scheduler over.
In our scheduling effort we have tried to stay close to the the O(1) scheduling behavior and calling interface. Thus I would not expect that to take a tremendously long time since the O(1) scheduler was integrated as u.ingosched.
However, we can't fight fires at all fronts. Right now we need to fix the load_balancing/weight adjustment of the current ckrm scheduler. If other schedulers work out better, so be it. I am for progression.
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
