lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:23    [W:0.026 / U:30.172 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site