Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched: rsdl improvements | Date | Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:52:44 +1100 |
| |
On Thursday 22 March 2007 11:24, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Thursday 22 March 2007 10:48, Jeffrey Hundstad wrote: > > Artur Skawina wrote: > > > Con Kolivas wrote: > > >> Note no interactive boost idea here. > > >> > > >> Patch is for 2.6.21-rc4-mm1. I have not spent the time trying to bring > > >> other bases in sync. > > > > > > I've tried RSDLv.31+this on 2.6.20.3 as i'm not tracking -mm. > > > > > >> Further improve the deterministic nature of the RSDL cpu scheduler and > > >> make the rr_interval tunable. > > >> > > >> By only giving out priority slots to tasks at the current runqueue's > > >> prio_level or below we can make the cpu allocation not altered by > > >> accounting issues across major_rotation periods. This makes the cpu > > >> allocation and latencies more deterministic, and decreases maximum > > >> latencies substantially. This change removes the possibility that > > >> tasks can get bursts of cpu activity which can favour towards > > >> interactive tasks but also favour towards cpu bound tasks which happen > > >> to wait on other activity (such as I/O) and is a net gain. > > > > > > I'm not sure this is going in the right direction... I'm writing > > > this while compiling a kernel w/ "nice -20 make -j2" and X is almost > > > > Did you mean "nice -20"? If so, that should have slowed X quite a bit. > > Try "nice 19" instead. > > > > nice(1): > > Run COMMAND with an adjusted niceness, which affects process > > scheduling. With no COMMAND, print the current niceness. Nicenesses > > range from -20 (most favorable scheduling) to 19 (least favorable). > > No he's right. Something scrambled my brain and I've completely left out > the part where I offer the old bursts as a tunable option as well, which > unintentionally killed off SCHED_BATCH as an entity. I'll have to put that > as an additional patch sorry as this by itself is not always a win. Hang in > there.
Actually, reworking the priority matrix to always have a slot at position 1 should fix this without needing a tunable. That is a better approach so I'll do that.
-- -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/
| |