Re: [patch] O(1) scheduler, -G1, 2.5.2-pre10, 2.4.17 (fwd)

[Timothy Covell]

On Friday 11 January 2002 23:45, Robert Love wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-01-11 at 16:46, Timothy Covell wrote:
> > But, given the above case, what happens when you have Sendmail on
> > the first CPU and Squid is sharing the second CPU?  This is not optimal
> > either, or am I missing something?
>
> Correct.  I sort of took the "optimal cache use" comment as
> tongue-in-cheek.  If I am mistaken, correct me, but here is my
> perception of the scenario:
>
> 2 CPUs, 3 tasks.  1 task receives 100% of the CPU time on one CPU.  The
> remaining two tasks share the second CPU.  The result is, of three
> evenly prioritized tasks, one receives double as much CPU time as the
> others.
>
> Aside from the cache utilization, this is not really "fair" -- the
> problem is, the current design of load_balance (which is quite good)
> just won't throw the tasks around so readily.  What could be done --
> cleanly -- to make this better?
>
> 	Robert Love

That's the million dollar question.   I was just concerned that if that
were to be implemented in a production kernel, then lots of admins
would be confused.

-- 
[e-mail].