[lkml]   [2001]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: a quest for a better scheduler

for the "normal case" performance see my other message.

I agree that a better threading model would surely help in a web server, but to
me this is not an excuse to live up with a broken scheduler.

The X15 server I'm working on now is a sort of user-space TUX, it uses only 8
threads per CPU and it achieves the same level of performance of the kernel
space TUX. Even in this case the performance advantage of the multiqueue
scheduler is remarkable, especially on a multi-CPU (> 2) architecture.

To achieve some decent disk/CPU/network overlapping with the current linux
blocking disk IO limitations there is no way to avoid a "bunch of server
threads". I've (experimentally) figured out that 8-16 threads per CPU can
assure some reasonable overlapping, depending on the memory size and disk
subsystem speed. On a 8-way machine this means 64-128 active tasks, a total
disaster with the current scheduler.

Unless we want to maintain the position tha the only way to achieve good
performance is to embed server applications in the kernel, some minimal help
should be provided to goodwilling user applications :)

TIA, ciao,

- Fabio

Alan Cox wrote:

> > Is there any special reason why any of those patches didn't make it to
> > the mainstream kernel code?
> All of them are worse for the normal case. Also 1500 running apache's isnt
> a remotely useful situation, you are thrashing the cache even if you are now
> not thrashing the scheduler. Use an httpd designed for that situation. Then
> you can also downgrade to a cheap pentium class box for the task ;)

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: 2005-03-22 13:23    [W:0.093 / U:7.724 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site