Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:50:37 +0100 | From | "J.C. Pizarro" <> | Subject | Re: Poor performance now? Please, put weighted velocities ctxts/s to the sched.decision! |
| |
On 2008/3/25, Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 1:29 PM, J.C. Pizarro <jcpiza@gmail.com> wrote: > > [2] "Re: Serious performance regression in Wine applications and Linux 2.6.24.*" > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/25/181 > > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:49:13 -0700, "Ray Lee" wrote: > > > Andi's idea of looking for excessive context switches is good -- I > > > didn't see a response to that one. Other than that, if you're only > > > noticing the issue in 3d games, then it could be several things (not > > > just the scheduler). > > > > The kernel needed the velocity parameter to gain it: ctxts per interval > > (normally ctxts/s or ctxts/minute). > > > We don't know that's the problem yet. The reporter is doing more testing. > > > > "Please, put 64-bit counter per task and incr.by.one each ctxt switch." > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/23/398 > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/23/401 > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/23/406 > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/24/1 > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/24/103 > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/24/157 > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/26/159 > > > There are already counters recording the switches: > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/25/314
I forgot this link, thanks!
It seems that they don't make ++ of counters in each switch ocurr. I don't know how they record the switches.
The current scheduler don't take the count or the velocity of ctxts as an extra parameter more in the decision of scheduling.
> > My proposal is free for yours, quasi-bastards, I won't charge you! > > > My parents were married.
Luck boy ;) !
| |