From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:01:21 +0100 From: Andreas Mohr Subject: Re: [ck] Re: [PATCH] mm: yield during swap prefetching Message-ID: <20060310090121.GA15315@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de> References: <200603081013.44678.kernel@kolivas.org> <200603081212.03223.kernel@kolivas.org> <440FEDF7.2040008@aitel.hist.no> <200603092008.16792.kernel@kolivas.org> <4410AFD3.7090505@bigpond.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4410AFD3.7090505@bigpond.net.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Peter Williams Cc: Con Kolivas , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ck@vds.kolivas.org, Helge Hafting List-ID: Hi, On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 09:44:35AM +1100, Peter Williams wrote: > I'm working on a patch to add soft and hard CPU rate caps to the > scheduler and the soft caps may be useful for what you're trying to do. > They are a generalization of your SCHED_BATCH implementation in > staircase (which would have been better called SCHED_BACKGROUND :-) Which SCHED_BATCH? ;) I only know it as SCHED_IDLEPRIO, which, come to think of it, is a better name, I believe :-) (renamed due to mainline introducing a *different* SCHED_BATCH mechanism) > IMHO) in that a task with a soft cap will only use more CPU than that > cap if it (the cpu) would otherwise go unused. The main difference > between this mechanism and staircase's SCHED_BATCH mechanism is that you > can specify how much (as parts per thousand of a CPU) the task can use > instead of just being background or not background. With the soft cap > set to zero the effect would be essentially the same. Interesting. Hopefully it will bring some nice results! Andreas -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org