Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:25:16 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@aciri.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, <current@FreeBSD.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Subject: Re: vm_zeropage priority problems. Message-ID: <20011222211250.E7836-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20011222000639.A22666@iguana.aciri.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:48:26PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > > Most of the changes here are to fix style bugs. In the NEW_SCHED case, > > the relative weights for each priority are determined by the niceweights[] > > table. kg->kg_estcpu is limited only by INT_MAX and priorities are > > assigned according to relative values of kg->kg_estcpu (code for this is > > not shown). > > i guess the latter is the hard part... what kind of complexity does > it have ? Not too bad. I use an extra loop in schedcpu() to find the current maximum of all kg->kg_estcpu, and convert the divison by this maximum (for scaling individual kg->kg_estcpu's) to a multiplication and a shift. This can probably be done better in loadav(). Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011222211250.E7836-100000>