On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> If you remember, with 50/50, I noticed some difficulties to fork many >> processes. I think that during a fork(), the parent has a higher probability >> of forking other processes than the child. So at least, we should use >> something like 67/33 or 75/25 for parent/child.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 09:34:07AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > It would be even better to simply have the rule: > - child gets almost no points at startup > - but when a parent does a "waitpid()" call and blocks, it will spread > out its points to the childred (the "vfork()" blocking is another case > that is really the same). > This is a very special kind of "priority inversion" logic: you give higher > priority to the things you wait for. Not because of holding any locks, but > simply because a blockign waitpid really is a damn big hint that "ok, the > child now works for the parent". An in-kernel scheduler API might help. void yield_to(struct task_struct *)? A userspace API might be nice, too. e.g. int sched_yield_to(pid_t). -- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
