Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:56:23 -0800 (PST) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: [patch] O(1) scheduler, -I1 |
| |
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > > > - RT scheduling is broken. > > > > Why ? > > RR tasks were queued to the expired array.
Doh (1) !! true
> > > [...] Ingo, IMHO is not correct to give time slices depending on > > priority and we should return to the old TS(nice) behavior. > > i agree - but your new patch is broken still, you have the timeslice range > inverted(!) :-)
Doh (2) !! true
> > [...] IMVHO is not correct to have new tasks to fully inherit parent > > priority because : > > i fully agree - in -I0 i have kept the 'child gets 10% less priority than > parent' rule. This works really well in fork-bomb situations, i've tested > this with -I0. (and -I1 as well.) It also works well with interactive > shells, which want to start processes which will inherit *some* of their > parent's priority, but not all of it.
I give them 1/3 to match it with PRIO_INTERACTIVE rule
> > 2) if an interactive task is born we do not need an immediate priority > > boost > > Think about starting a simple 'ls' under X if under some high load. This > works just fine under 2.5.2-vanilla and 2.5.2-I0 as well. We should give > the task a chance to finish within ... 500 or 1000 msecs (or so), most > shell commands that fork do so.
Lower priority start point in do_fork() helps, IMHO, real interactive tasks like editors, X, ... Try different values with make -j40 running ...
> > 3) if a cpu bound task born from an interactive task ( very very common ) > > it'll make a long run on the cpu before falling in the hell of cpu > > bound tasks > > > > I've also decreased the minimum time slice to 10ms and increased the > > max to 160ms and this should cast back niced tasks to low cpu usages. > > (i've done this already in -I0, based on earlier comments of yours.) > > > I'm using it in my desk and just to have fun i keep running make -j20 > > in background:-) > > please re-test this with -I1. (i've tested it and it works just fine, but > more testing cannot hurt.) > > are there any other items in your patch that are not yet in -I1?
I'll take a closer look asap ...
- Davide
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |