[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [CFT][PATCH] new scheduler policy
    At 11:40 PM 8/19/2003 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:

    >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!

    (looks like a fine start to me. my box [and subjective driver] give it a
    one thumb up plus change;)

    >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.

    Hmm. I watched priority distribution (eyeballs, not instrumentation), and
    it looked "right" to me until the load reached "fairly hefty"... at the
    point where swap really became a factor, distribution flattened, and the
    mean priority rose (high). I did see some odd-ball high priority cc1's at
    the low to moderate end (historically indicator of trouble here), but not
    much. At what I call moderate load, it behaved well, and looked/felt good.


    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:4.352 / U:0.920 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site