* Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ack. And what of the suggestion to try to ensure that a yielding task > simply not end up as the very next one chosen to run? Maybe by > swapping it with another (adjacent?) task in the tree if it comes out > on top again?
we did that too for quite some time in CFS - it was found to be "not agressive enough" by some folks and "too agressive" by others. Then when people started bickering over this we added these two simple corner cases - switchable via a flag. (minimum agression and maximum agression) > (I really don't know the proper terminology to use here, but hopefully > Ingo can translate that). the terminology you used is perfectly fine. > Thanks Ingo -- I *really* like this scheduler! heh, thanks :) For which workload does it make the biggest difference for you? (and compared to what other scheduler you used before? 2.6.22?) Ingo -- 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/