TarotApprentice wrote: >> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:42:26 -0400 From: [email protected] [...] >> We need to run the check for what should be run on a variety of >> events and at least once every task switch interval. >> >> We need to do schedule enforcement on a different set of events, >> one of which is going to occur very frequently - checkpoint. >> >> jm7 > > Which begs the question if we DIDN'T do it at every checkpoint (or > time) but rather based upon TSI would things improve? I don't know
Indeed, is there *any* need for testing the schedule any more often than min(TSI, minimum WU deadline, 0.75*(cache length time) ) ? Note that CPUs will go idle for very small cache sizes if the transfer times are long. This should be accepted! If a user wants a very small cache, let them have that as set. Perhaps issue a warning that the cache size is smaller than the expected WU request/transfer time. For example, I have some very small memory devices that could help out for small WUs and zero cache. If a download pulls in WUs that spoil the show, then that is a fault of code elsewhere in delivering such unpalatable WUs. On the client we can still afford (to wait) to find out at the next scheduled scheduling test. EDF or whatever then sorts out whatever mess as best it can. Perhaps automatically junk hopeless WUs if they have not been started? Regards, Martin -- -------------------- Martin Lomas m_boincdev ml1 co uk.ddSPAM.dd -------------------- _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
