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

[Timothy Covell]

On Saturday 12 January 2002 14:44, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2002, 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?
>
> My opinion is: if it can be solved with no more than 20 lines of code
> let's do it, otherwise let's see what kind of catastrophe will happen by
> allowing such behavior. Because i've already seen hundreds of lines of
> code added to solve corner cases and removed after 3-4 years because
> someone realized that maybe such corner cases does not matter more than a
> whit.
> I'll be happy to be shut down here ...
>
>
>
> - Davide

There's always the 90/10 rule about 90% of the work being nescessary to
get out the last 10% of improvements.  It looks like you guys have been
working quite hard at this already and making good progress.   Personally,
I have nothing to offer beyond the ideas of Francois.

-- 
[e-mail].