Re: On optimising the scheduler for large run queues

From: Jamie Lokier (lkd@tantalophile.demon.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jan 29 2000 - 09:59:49 EST

  • Next message: Jim Nance: "Starting processes in a "suspended" state"

    Jan-Simon Pendry wrote:
    > so, which way is linux going? you tell me - there doesn't seem to
    > be a "right" answer here. this may well mean there needs to be two
    > schedulers, one with ultra-low overhead for desktops, and another,
    > with better scalability, for servers.

    Desktops don't need ultra-low overhead at the levels being discussed
    here. Desktops don't do much scheduling at all.

    They need good process _selection_ criteria for that maximum pleasure,
    deep interactive experience. (I.e. move the mouse and the pointer moves
    in X even though you've got 3 parallel compiles running).

    But a few cycles missed in the scheduler is not a big deal for typical
    desktop uses.

    -- Jamie

    -
    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/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 29 2000 - 16:28:12 EST