[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: interactive task starvation
    On Wednesday 22 March 2006 00:24, Mike Galbraith wrote:
    > On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 13:59 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
    > > That would suit me perfectly. I think I would set them both to zero.
    > > It's not clear to me what workload they can help, it seems that they
    > > try to allow a sometimes unfair scheduling.
    > Correct. Massively unfair scheduling is what interactivity requires.

    To some degree, yes. Transient unfairness was all that it was supposed to do
    and clearly it failed at being transient.

    I would argue that good interactivity is possible with fairness by changing
    the design. I won't go there (to try and push it that is), though, as the
    opposition to changing the whole scheduler in place or making it pluggable
    has already been voiced numerous times over, and it would kill me to try and
    promote such an alternative ever again. Especially since the number of people
    willing to test interactive patches and report to lkml has dropped to
    virtually nil.

    The yardstick for changes is now the speed of 'ls' scrolling in the console.
    Where exactly are those extra cycles going I wonder? Do you think the
    scheduler somehow makes the cpu idle doing nothing in that timespace? Clearly
    that's not true, and userspace is making something spin unnecessarily, but
    we're gonna fix that by modifying the scheduler.... sigh

    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: 2006-03-21 14:56    [W:0.038 / U:25.936 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site