O(1) scheduler for 2.4.(19|20-pre.)?

O(1) scheduler for 2.4.(19|20-pre.)?

[Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk]

hi

1. Do I need the O(1) scheduler to run a heavily I/O bound server application 
with some 200-500 concurrent threads?
2. If so - can I find the O(1) scheduler somewhere for 2.4?

roy
-- 
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, Datavaktmester
ProntoTV AS - http://www.pronto.tv/
Tel: +47 9801 3356

Computers are like air conditioners.
They stop working when you open Windows.

Re: O(1) scheduler for 2.4.(19|20-pre.)?

[Alan Cox]

On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 10:48, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> 1. Do I need the O(1) scheduler to run a heavily I/O bound server application 
> with some 200-500 concurrent threads?
> 2. If so - can I find the O(1) scheduler somewhere for 2.4?

2.4.19-ac/2.4.20-ac, Red Hat 7.3, Red Hat 8.0, and probably quite a few
other places. I think Robert had a set of patches versus plain 2.4.19
too

Re: O(1) scheduler for 2.4.(19|20-pre.)?

[Brandon Low]

> 2.4.19-ac/2.4.20-ac, Red Hat 7.3, Red Hat 8.0, and probably quite a few
> other places. I think Robert had a set of patches versus plain 2.4.19
> too

Unfortunately some of the scheduler bits that have been merged into 
2.4.20-pre have broken the nice patch that robert has, I'm hoping he can 
re-diff it for us (me) because I like to have the option of getting O(1) 
without using Alan's tree.

Good luck.

Brandon Low
Gentoo Linux Kernel Release Coordinator

Re: O(1) scheduler for 2.4.(19|20-pre.)?

[Robert Love]

On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 08:19, Alan Cox wrote:

> 2.4.19-ac/2.4.20-ac, Red Hat 7.3, Red Hat 8.0, and probably quite a
> few other places. I think Robert had a set of patches versus plain
> 2.4.19 too

Yep, see:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml/sched/ingo-O1/

I would recommend using 2.4-ac over mainline with my patches, however. 
Alan's tree is well-tested and I send him scheduler fixes quicker than I
update my own patches :)

It has lots of other nice bits, too.

	Robert Love

Re: O(1) scheduler for 2.4.(19|20-pre.)?

[Robert Love]

On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 13:03, Brandon Low wrote:

> Unfortunately some of the scheduler bits that have been merged into 
> 2.4.20-pre have broken the nice patch that robert has, I'm hoping he can 
> re-diff it for us (me) because I like to have the option of getting O(1) 
> without using Alan's tree.

I just put a 2.4.19 final patch up.  I will do a 2.4.20-pre/2.4.20 patch
eventually but it is not at the top of my list.  I would not think
managing the rejects is too difficult.

It is a much higher priority keeping the 2.4-ac and 2.5 scheduler sane.

	Robert Love