Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:50:10 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf NOTES files options src/sys/kern kern_clock.c kern_switch.c sched_4bsd.c sched_core.c sched_ule.c src/sys/sys sched.h src/sys/i386/conf GENERIC src/sys/amd64/conf GENERIC Message-ID: <200606130950.11435.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200606131312.k5DDCvbZ034813@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200606131312.k5DDCvbZ034813@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 13 June 2006 09:12, David Xu wrote: > davidxu 2006-06-13 13:12:57 UTC >=20 > FreeBSD src repository >=20 > Modified files: > sys/conf NOTES files options=20 > sys/kern kern_clock.c kern_switch.c sched_4bsd.c=20 > sched_ule.c=20 > sys/sys sched.h=20 > sys/i386/conf GENERIC=20 > sys/amd64/conf GENERIC=20 > Added files: > sys/kern sched_core.c=20 > Log: > Add scheduler CORE, the work I have done half a year ago, recent, > I picked it up again. The scheduler is forked from ULE, but the > algorithm to detect an interactive process is almost completely > different with ULE, it comes from Linux paper "Understanding the > Linux 2.6.8.1 CPU Scheduler", although I still use same word > "score" as a priority boost in ULE scheduler. Is there a particular reason you added sched_tick() instead of doing that work in sched_clock()? =2D-=20 John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> =A0<>< =A0http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" =A0=3D =A0http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200606130950.11435.jhb>