Solving starvation problems in the scheduler

Posted Mar 26, 2006 20:07 UTC (Sun) by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
Parent article: Solving starvation problems in the scheduler

as someone above said, this scheduler often comes up kind'a badly in the
news. really feels like a big hack... if you compare the design with dr.
Con Kolivas' [1] staircase scheduler - i really feel the kernel developers
should think about merging it.

its designed with interactivity in mind, not hacked on. all this fiddling
to work around a (seemingly) wrong design - it doesn't sound like the
right thing to do... and if it saves hundreds of lines of code, and
generally seems to perform better [2], wouldn't it be smarter to get it
in, even as an alternative choice, for even wider testing (altough it is
quite mature, after all these years of hard work)?

[1] http://members.optusnet.com.au/ckolivas/kernel/
[2] http://bhhdoa.org.au/pipermail/ck/2006-March/005693.html

Solving starvation problems in the scheduler

Posted Mar 31, 2006 0:06 UTC (Fri) by cyrus (subscriber, #36858) [Link] (2 responses)

What are you talking about? This article refers to the CPU SCHEDULER, which decides when which process is about to run. The Staircase scheduler from Con is an I/O scheduler, which controls a block device. (When to access disk and stuff..)

Staircase scheduler

Posted Mar 31, 2006 0:27 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (1 responses)

No, actually, the staircase scheduler is a CPU scheduler. See this LWN article from 2004.

Staircase scheduler

Posted Mar 31, 2006 1:09 UTC (Fri) by cyrus (subscriber, #36858) [Link]

Oh.. good to know, sorry for my previous post then, my fault.