Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:38:21 +1100 | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: dynamic sched timeslices |
| |
Quoting Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>:
> Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de> wrote: > > > > Hi Con, > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 07:45:02AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > That's why I think we should offer the tunables. > > > > > > If your workload is so dedicated to just number crunching it isn't hard > to add > > > a zero to maximum timeslice in kernel/sced.c. > > > > Of course I can compile a custom kernel for myself and tune all sorts of > > things. But this is not the way most Linux users want to use Linux any > > more. Actually that's a long time ago. > > > > I don't think we should be averse to offering a couple of nice high-level > scheduler tunables. But I do think we should have testing results which > clearly show that they provide some benefit, and we should agree that the > scheduler cannot provide the same benefit automagically. > > Apologies in advance if we've seen those testing results and I missed it.
Well that reply takes my message out of context. I'm not averse to tunables - if they do something.
The only evidence Kurt has shown so far is that he can decrease throughput. The rest is theoretical based on a scheduler that isn't the 2.6 kernel.
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/
| |