[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy v10

    Martin J. Bligh wrote:

    >>This is quite a big change from v8. Fixes a few bugs in child priority,
    >>and adds a small lower bound on the amount of history that is kept. This
    >>should improve "fork something" times hopefully, and stops new children
    >>being able to fluctuate priority so wildly.
    >>Eliminates "timeslice backboost" and only uses "priority backboost". This
    >>decreases scheduling latency quite nicely - I can only measure 130ms for
    >>a very low priority task, with a make -j3 and wildly moving an xterm around
    >>in front of a mozilla window.
    >>Makes a fairly fundamental change to how sleeping/running is accounted.
    >>It now takes into account time on the runqueue. This hopefully will keep
    >>priorities more stable under varying loads.
    >>Includes an upper bound on the amount of priority a task can get in one
    >>sleep. Hopefully this catches freak long sleeps like a SIGSTOP or unexpected
    >>swaps. This change breaks the priority calculation a little bit. I'm thinking
    >>about how to fix it.
    >>Feedback welcome! Its against 0-test4, as usual.
    >Oooh - much better.
    >Kernbench: (make -j vmlinux, maximal tasks)
    > Elapsed System User CPU
    > 2.6.0-test4 45.87 116.92 571.10 1499.00
    > 2.6.0-test4-nick 49.37 131.31 611.15 1500.75
    > 2.6.0-test4-nick7a 49.48 125.95 617.71 1502.00
    > 2.6.0-test4-nick10 46.91 114.03 584.16 1489.25
    >SDET 128 (see disclaimer)
    > Throughput Std. Dev
    > 2.6.0-test4 100.0% 0.3%
    > 2.6.0-test4-nick 102.9% 0.3%
    > 2.6.0-test4-nick7a 105.1% 0.5%
    > 2.6.0-test4-nick10 107.7% 0.2%


    >System time of kernbench is back to what it would be with virgin, or
    >actually a little less. Elapsed time is still up a little bit, along
    >with user time, but it's getting pretty close.
    >Have you looked at Rick Lindsley's schedstat patches? I don't have a
    >totally up-to-date version, but that might give us a better idea of
    >what's going on wrt migrations, balancing, etc.

    I haven't had a look, no. I will see.

    >I'll try to get together a broader set of benchmarks and hammer on this
    >some more ...

    That would be cool. It seems to be rapidly becoming "acceptable" to
    desktop users, so high end tuning needs to be next. But hopefully I
    might not have to do much.

    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:0.050 / U:75.584 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site