Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [ck] Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 0/7] RSDL cpu scheduler for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 | Date | Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:31:38 +1100 |
| |
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 20:21, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Tuesday 13 March 2007 19:18, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote: > > > [...] The situation as we speak is that you can run cpu intensive > > > tasks while watching eye-candy. With RSDL, you can't, you feel the > > > non-interactive load instantly. [...] > > > > i have to agree with Mike that this is a material regression that cannot > > be talked around. > > > > Con, we want RSDL to /improve/ interactivity. Having new scheduler > > interactivity logic that behaves /worse/ in the presence of CPU hogs, > > which CPU hogs are even reniced to +5, than the current interactivity > > code, is i think a non-starter. Could you try to fix this, please? Good > > interactivity in the presence of CPU hogs (be them default nice level or > > nice +5) is _the_ most important scheduler interactivity metric. > > Anything else is really secondary. > > Well I guess you must have missed where I asked him if he would be happy if > I changed +5 metrics to do whatever he wanted and he refused to answer me. > That would easily fit within that scheme. Any percentage of nice value he > chose. I suggest 50% of nice 0. Heck I can even increase it if he likes. > All I asked for was an answer as to whether that would satisfy his > criterion.
It seem Mike has chosen to go silent so I'll guess on his part.
nice on my debian etch seems to choose nice +10 without arguments contrary to a previous discussion that said 4 was the default. However 4 is a good value to use as a base of sorts.
What I propose is as a proportion of nice 0: nice 4 1/2 nice 8 1/4 nice 12 1/8 nice 16 1/16 nice 20 1/32 (of course nice 20 doesn't exist)
and we can do the opposite in the other direction nice -4 2 nice -8 4 nice -12 8 nice -16 16 nice -20 32
Assuming no further discussion is forthcoming I'll implement that along with Al's suggestion for staggering the latencies better with nice differences since the two are changing the same thing.
-- -ck - 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/
| |