lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.5.72 O(1) interactivity bugfix
    Date
    On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 03:59, Andreas Boman wrote:
    > On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 10:43, Con Kolivas wrote:
    > > --BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE--
    > > Hash: SHA1
    > >
    > > Hi Ingo, all
    > >
    > > While messing with the interactivity code I found what appears to be an
    > > uninitialised variable (p->sleep_avg), which is responsible for all the
    > > boost/penalty in the scheduler. Initialising this variable to 0 seems to
    > > have made absolutely massive improvements to system responsiveness under
    > > load and completely removed audio skips up to doing a make -j64 on my
    > > uniprocessor P4 (beyond which swap starts being used), without changing
    > > the scheduler timeslices. This seems to help all 2.4 O(1) based kernels
    > > as well. Attached is a patch against 2.5.72 but I'm not sure about the
    > > best place to initialise it.
    >
    > Applying this ontop of 2.5.72-mm1 causes more xmms/mpg321/ogg123
    > skipping than with plain -mm1 here. make -j20 on my up athlon 1900+ with
    > 512M ram causes extreme skipping until the make is killed. With plain
    > -mm1 I may get _one_ skip at the very begining of a song during make
    > -j20 (about 50% of the time). Plain -mm1 stops skipping after 10-15 sec
    > of playback of a song, and even switching desktops after that doesnt
    > cause skips, with or without make -j20 running (switching to/from
    > desktops with apps like mozilla, evolution etc. will cause skips during
    > the first 10-15 sec of a song regardless what I do it seems).
    >
    > Renicing xmms to -15 doesnt change anything with either kernel.

    Hmm. I got too excited with the fact it improved so much on the 2.4 O(1)
    kernels that I didn't try it hard enough on the 2.5 kernels. I have had
    people quietly telling me that it isn't uninitialised, but that I am simply
    resetting it with this patch on new forked processes. It seems the extra
    changes to the 2.5 scheduler make this patch make things worse?

    I need more testing of the 2.4 one as well to see if it was just my
    combination of hardware and kernel that was better with this...

    Con

    -
    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 13:36    [W:0.022 / U:60.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site