[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [CFT][PATCH] new scheduler policy

    Mike Galbraith wrote:

    > At 11:53 AM 8/19/2003 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
    >> Hi everyone,
    >> As per the latest trend these days, I've done some tinkering with
    >> the cpu scheduler. I have gone in the opposite direction of most
    >> of the recent stuff and come out with something that can be nearly
    >> as good interactivity wise (for me).
    >> I haven't run many tests on it - my mind blanked when I tried to
    >> remember the scores of scheduler "exploits" thrown around. So if
    >> anyone would like to suggest some, or better still, run some,
    >> please do so. And be nice, this isn't my type of scheduler :P
    > Ok, I took it out for a quick spin...

    Thanks again.

    > Test-starve.c starvation is back (curable via other means), but irman2
    > is utterly harmless. Responsiveness under load is very nice until I
    > get to the "very hefty" end of the spectrum (expected). Throughput is
    > down a bit at make -j30, and there are many cc1's running at very high
    > priority once swap becomes moderately busy. OTOH, concurrency for the
    > make -jN in general appears to be up a bit. X is pretty choppy when
    > moving windows around, but that _appears_ to be the newer/tamer
    > backboost bleeding a kdeinit thread a bit too dry. (I think it'll be
    > easy to correct, will let you know if what I have in mind to test that
    > theory works out). Ending on a decidedly positive note, I can no
    > longer reproduce priority inversion troubles with xmms's gl thread,
    > nor with blender.

    Well, it sounds like a good start, though I'll have to get up to scratch
    on the array of scheduler badness programs!

    I expect throughput to be down in this release due to the timeslice thing.
    This should be fixable.

    I think either there is a bug in my accounting somewhere or I have not quite
    thought it though properly because priorities don't seem to get distributed
    well. Also its not using the nanosecond timing stuff (yet). This might help
    a bit.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.021 / U:1.520 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site