Re: Scheduler ( was: Just a second ) ...

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Davide Libenzi wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > I just don't find it very interesting. The scheduler is about 100 lines
> > out of however-many-million (3.8 at least count), and doesn't even impact
> > most normal performace very much.
>
> Linus, sharing queue and lock between CPUs for a "thing" highly frequency
> ( schedule()s + wakeup()s ) accessed like the scheduler it's quite ugly
> and it's not that much funny. And it's not only performance wise, it's
> more design wise.

"Design wise" is highly overrated.

Simplicity is _much_ more important, if something commonly is only done a
few hundred times a second. Locking overhead is basically zero for that
case.

> > We'll clearly do per-CPU runqueues or something some day. And that worries
> > me not one whit, compared to thigns like VM and block device layer ;)
>
> Why not 2.5.x ?

Maybe. But read the rest of the sentence. There are issues that are about
a million times more important.

> Moving to 4, 8, 16 CPUs the run queue load, that would be thought insane
> for UP systems, starts to matter.

4 cpu's are "high end" today. We can probably point to tens of thousands
of UP machines for each 4-way out there. The ratio gets even worse for 8,
and 16 CPU's is basically a rounding error.

You have to prioritize. Scheduling overhead is way down the list.

		Linus