> Hi people, [...]
> I'm not aiming for a "yeah, nice, we'll merge it" on this, but rather > for suggestions whether it's worth anyones time to pursue this further. This is interesting, there might be a good outcome of this diff eventually. However as of now: - you have removed the bunch of code which tries to make sure processes do not hop between cpus unless there is a gain in doing so, on MP kernels. Did you try your diff on a MP kernel? - non-tabbed indent is evil. And makes the diff harder to read. - I see many locks removed in there, and moving information to the proc structure does not explain all of them. This gives a bad gut feeling about the behaviour of this on MP kernels. A really bad gut feeling. - you have changed the roundrobin duration from (hz / 10 to (hz / 100). However, this computation yields zero on platforms where hz < 100, which is not a good idea. The only assumptions you can make about hz is that 50 <= hz <= 1024. - you removed the enforcement of RLIMIT_CPU. No way. Over my dead body. - I also don't really like switching from NQS run queues to a single one. I understand you need this to be able to compare the deadlines with only one queue walk, but this can become expensive with many processes in the runqueue... - your priority computation are unexplained magic. What does 20 mean? Shouldn't at least one of them be derived from `hz'? Why << 1 versus << 5? Are you sure the values you are computed are always within the bounds you are expecting? Why isn't there any comment about these computations? Miod
