This concept I think is used in Solaris .. as they have dynamic loadable
schedulers..
Zdenek Kabelac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 04/05/2001 05:43:15 PM
To: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:(bcc: Amol Lad/HSS)
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: a quest for a better schedule
Hello
Just dump idea - why not make scheduler switchable with modules - so
users
could select any scheduler they want ?
This should not be that hard and would make it easy to replace scheduler
at runtime so everyone could easily try what's the best for him/her.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscr
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 10:49:04AM -0700, Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
> Imagine that most of the program's memory is on node 1, it was scheduled
> on node 2 cpu 8 momentarily (maybe because kswapd ran on node 1, other
> higher priority processes took over other cpus on node 1, etc).
>
> Then, your patch
>
> It helps by keeping the task in the same node if it cannot keep it in
> the same cpu anymore.
>
> Assume task A is sleeping and it last run on cpu 8 node 2. It gets a wakeup
> and it gets running and for some reason cpu 8 is busy and there are other
> cpus idle in the system. Now with the cu
> Just a quick comment. Andrea, unless your machine has some hardware
> that imply pernode runqueues will help (nodelevel caches etc), I fail
> to understand how this is helping you ... here's a simple theory though.
> If your system is lightly loaded, your pernode queues are actually
> implement
L PROTECTED]
(w) 914-945-2003(fax) 914-945-4425 TL: 862-2003
Kanoj Sarcar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 04/04/2001 01:14:28 PM
To: Hubertus Franke/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linux Kernel List),
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: a quest for a better sched
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:50:58AM -0700, Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
> >
> > I didn't seen anything from Kanoj but I did something myself for the wildfire:
> >
> >
>ftp://ftp.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/kernels/v2.4/2.4.3aa1/10_numa-sched-1
> >
> > this is mostly an userspace iss
>
>
>
> Kanoj, our cpu-pooling + loadbalancing allows you to do that.
> The system adminstrator can specify at runtime through a
> /proc filesystem interface the cpu-pool-size, whether loadbalacing
> should take place.
Yes, I think this approach can support the various requirements
put on the
TECTED] (Andrea Arcangeli)
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ingo Molnar), Hubertus Franke/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kravetz), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fabio
Riccardi), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linux Kernel List),
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: a quest for a better sch
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:39:23AM -0700, Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
> example, for NUMA, we need to try hard to schedule a thread on the
> node that has most of its memory (for no reason other than to decrease
> memory latency). Independently, some NUMA machines build in multilevel
> caches and local
>
> I didn't seen anything from Kanoj but I did something myself for the wildfire:
>
>
>ftp://ftp.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/kernels/v2.4/2.4.3aa1/10_numa-sched-1
>
> this is mostly an userspace issue, not really intended as a kernel optimization
> (however it's also pa
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Hubertus Franke wrote:
>
> > Another point to raise is that the current scheduler does a exhaustive
> > search for the "best" task to run. It touches every process in the
> > runqueue. this is ok if the runqueue length is limited to a very small
> > multiple of the #cp
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:44:22AM -0600, Khalid Aziz wrote:
> Let me stress that HP scheduler is not meant to be a replacement for the
> current scheduler. The HP scheduler patch allows the current scheduler
> to be replaced by another scheduler by loading a module in special
> cases.
HP also ha
13 matches
Mail list logo
