Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Feb 1999 16:22:37 +0100 (CET) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: 2.2.1 scheduler behavior |
| |
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Neil Conway wrote:
> > i've changed it back to 15 around pre9-2.2.0. Your original reasoning for > > reducing PROC_CHANGE_PENALTY was interactive feel, but this became a > > non-issue with my smp_reschedule patches, so i empirically adjusted > > PROC_CHANGE_PENALTY to maximize kernel compilation speed. > > Ah the irony... My patch for 2.1.131 changed it to 15, but Linus chose > 10 :-)) Lucky guess! > > I must read the new scheduling code and try to figure out the effects of > smp_reschedule(). I wasn't aware that it removed the interactive > problem. Also note that I changed it from *20* to 15, so don't be > completely sure you've killed the interactive problem unless it's gone > when you build a kernel with it set to 20. Basically, due to the nature > of the problem, even reducing it to 19 was enough to prevent it hurting > interactive response time.
(yes but the real interactive problems were still there. It's a whole different issue, PROC_CHANGE_PENALTY is now only a way to measure processor changing penalty, without any interactivity issue.) I have made it a sysctl and i've tried lots of settings (including 20), and for pure CPU-intensive work (kernel compilation) 15 proved to be the best.
-- mingo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |