Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [BENCHMARK] scheduler tunables with contest - prio_bonus_ratio | Date | Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:04:24 +1100 |
| |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 18:42, Con Kolivas wrote: >> I guess this explains why my variable timeslice thingy in -ck helps on the >> desktop. Basically by shortening the timeslice it is masking the effect of >> the interactivity estimator under load. That is, it is treating the >> symptoms of having an interactivity estimator rather than tackling the >> cause. > >You would probably get the same effect or better by setting >prio_bonus_ratio lower (or off). > >Setting it lower will also give less priority bonus/penalty and not >reinsert the tasks so readily into the active array. > >Something like the attached patch may help... > > Robert Love
Thanks. That looks fair enough. My only concern is that io_load performance is worse with lower prio_bonus_ratio settings and io loads are the most felt.
I was thinking of changing what it varied. I was going to leave the timeslice fixed and use it to change the prio_bonus_ratio under load. Although that kind of defeats the purpose of having it in the first place since it is supposed to decide what is interactive under load?
Con -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+Al6IF6dfvkL3i1gRAo6mAKColJKXyGNaa0dcwot4EvElpHqkawCeORLm ZSyRVx1w76qWBEgkjbRZWmw= =ckYA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - 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/
| |