From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
To: Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>
Cc: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:40:31 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200607251940.k6PJeWbu023928@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:27:14 +0300." <200607252127.14024.a1426z@gawab.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 811 bytes --]
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:27:14 +0300, Al Boldi said:
> Peter Williams wrote:
> > It's probably not a good idea to have different schedulers managing the
> > same resource. The way to do different scheduling per process is to use
> > the scheduling policy mechanism i.e. SCHED_FIFO, SCHED_RR, etc.
> > (possibly extended) within each scheduler. On the other hand, on an SMP
> > system, having a different scheduler on each run queue (or sub set of
> > queues) might be interesting :-).
>
> What's wrong with multiple run-queues on UP?
On an SMP system, you can have one CPU doing one class of scheduling (long
timeslice for computational, for example), while another CPU is dedicated
to doing RT scheduling, and so on. It's not clear to me that "different
classes per CPU" makes any real sense on a UP....
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-07-25 19:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-07-24 15:57 [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2 Al Boldi
2006-07-25 2:44 ` Peter Williams
2006-07-25 4:57 ` Al Boldi
2006-07-25 5:44 ` Peter Williams
2006-07-25 18:27 ` Al Boldi
2006-07-25 19:40 ` Valdis.Kletnieks [this message]
2006-07-26 4:45 ` Al Boldi
2006-07-26 11:28 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2006-07-26 0:51 ` Peter Williams
2006-07-26 4:45 ` Al Boldi
2006-07-26 5:14 ` Peter Williams
2006-07-26 11:23 ` Al Boldi
2006-07-26 12:34 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2006-07-26 14:04 ` Al Boldi
2006-07-27 1:32 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-07-21 3:24 Peter Williams
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200607251940.k6PJeWbu023928@turing-police.cc.vt.edu \
--to=valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=a1426z@gawab.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).