Re: [RFC] generalise scheduling classes

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Nick Piggin wrote:

> 
> 
> bill davidsen wrote:
> 
> >In article <3FC0A0C2.90800@cyberone.com.au>,
> >Nick Piggin  <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >| We still don't have an HT aware scheduler, which is unfortunate because
> >| weird stuff like that looks like it will only become more common in future.
> >
> >The idea is hardly new, in the late 60's GE (still a mainframe vendor at
> >that time) was looking at two execution units on a single memory path.
> >They decided it would have problems with memory bandwidth, what else is
> >new?
> >
> 
> I don't think I said new, but I guess they (SMT, NUMA, CMP) are newish
> for architectures supported by Linux Kernel. OK NUMA has been around for
> a while, but the scheduler apparently doesn't work so well for atypical
> new NUMAs like Opteron.

You didn't say new, I wasn't correcting you, just thought that the
historical perspective might be interesting. I would love to try the new
scheduler, but my test computer is not pleased with Fedora.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.