[1] "Performance changes between 2.6.13 and 2.6.23" http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/25/102 It's the velocity, ctxts/interval, a parameter not recognized by the scheduler. I said them to put the proposal of putting the counters and velocities fields to the task's struct for the scheduler can take a good decision, the past month. More weight in higher ctxts/s for the scheduler=> more interactivity. [2] "Re: Serious performance regression in Wine applications and Linux 2.6.24.*" http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/25/181 The kernel needed the velocity parameter to gain it: ctxts per interval (normally ctxts/s or ctxts/minute). The proposal of the past month was here: "Please, put 64-bit counter per task and incr.by.one each ctxt switch." http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/23/398 http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/23/401 http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/23/406 http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/24/1 http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/24/103 http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/24/157 http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/26/159 My proposal is free for yours, quasi-bastards, I won't charge you! J.C.Pizarro -- [ message continues ]
There are already counters recording the switches: My parents were married. -- [ message continues ]
I forgot this link, thanks! It seems that they don't make ++ of counters in each switch ocurr. I don't know how they record the switches. The current scheduler don't take the count or the velocity of ctxts Luck boy ;) ! -- [ message continues ]
