[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy

    Martin J. Bligh wrote:

    >Seems to do badly with CPU intensive tasks:
    >Kernbench: (make -j vmlinux, maximal tasks)
    > Elapsed System User CPU
    > 2.6.0-test3 46.00 115.49 571.94 1494.25
    > 2.6.0-test4-nick 49.37 131.31 611.15 1500.75

    Thanks Martin.

    >Oddly, schedule itself is significantly cheaper, but you seem
    >to end up with much more expense elsewhere. Thrashing tasks between
    >CPUs, maybe (esp given the increased user time)? I'll do a proper
    >baseline against test4, but I don't expect it to be any different, really.

    Yeah I'd say most if not all would be my fault though. What happens
    is that a lowest priority process will get a 1ms timeslice if there
    is a highest priority process on the same runqueue, though it will
    get I think 275ms if there are only other low priority processes

    A kernbench probably has enough IO to keep priorities up a bit and
    keep timeslices short. The timeslice stuff could probably still use
    a bit of tuning. On the other hand, nice -20 processes should get
    big timeslices, while other schedulers give them small timeslices.

    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 13:48    [W:0.022 / U:5.460 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site