From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:06:53 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [ck] Re: [PATCH] mm: yield during swap prefetching Message-ID: <20060317090653.GC13387@elte.hu> References: <200603081013.44678.kernel@kolivas.org> <20060307152636.1324a5b5.akpm@osdl.org> <200603090036.49915.kernel@kolivas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200603090036.49915.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Con Kolivas Cc: ck@vds.kolivas.org, Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Con Kolivas wrote: > > We do have SCHED_BATCH but even that doesn't really have the desired > > effect. I know how much yield sucks and I actually want it to suck as much > > as yield does. > > Thinking some more on this I wonder if SCHED_BATCH isn't a strong > enough scheduling hint if it's not suitable for such an application. > Ingo do you think we could make SCHED_BATCH tasks always wake up on > the expired array? yep, i think that's a good idea. In the worst case the starvation timeout should kick in. Ingo -- 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