lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] O(1) scheduler-H6/H7/I0 and nice +19
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Ed Tomlinson wrote:

> The 2.4.17-I0 patch makes things much better here. Does this one
> suffer from the same bugs that the 2.5.2 version has?
>
> PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND
> 790 ed 44 19 14320 13M 640 R N 69.4 2.7 166:18 setiathome
> 7676 ed 0 0 14908 14M 11036 R 16.7 2.8 0:13 kmail
> 5703 root 0 -10 82596 23M 1808 R < 11.2 4.6 2:23 XFree86
> 7725 ed 0 0 1016 1016 776 R 1.3 0.1 0:00 top
> 5803 ed 0 0 3764 3764 2904 R 0.5 0.7 0:15 gkrellm
> 7720 ed 0 0 9752 9752 7856 R 0.3 1.8 0:04 kdeinit
> 5725 ed 0 0 7524 7520 6888 S 0.1 1.4 0:01 kdeinit
> 1 root 0 0 520 472 452 S 0.0 0.0 0:07 init
> 2 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:00 keventd
> 3 root 17 19 0 0 0 SWN 0.0 0.0 0:00 ksoftirqd_CPU0
> 4 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:00 kswapd
> 5 root 25 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:00 bdflush
> 6 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:02 kupdated
> 7 root 12 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:00 khubd
> 18 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:00 kreiserfsd
> 60 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:00 mdrecoveryd
> 219 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:00 usb-storage-0
> 220 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:00 scsi_eh_0
> 234 root 0 0 648 644 528 S 0.0 0.1 0:00 syslogd
> 238 root -2 0 1344 1344 1264 S 0.0 0.2 0:00 watchdog
> 243 root 0 0 1184 1176 456 S 0.0 0.2 0:00 klogd
> 249 daemon 0 0 472 460 380 S 0.0 0.0 0:00 portmap
>
> Major difference from older version of the patch is that top shows many
> processes with PRI 0. I am not sure this is intended?
>
> Thanks
> Ed Tomlinson
>
> On January 14, 2002 10:27 pm, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > > On January 14, 2002 09:33 pm, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > > > try to replace :
> > > >
> > > > PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE() and RT_PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE() with :
> > > >
> > > > #define NICE_TO_TIMESLICE(n) (MIN_TIMESLICE + ((MAX_TIMESLICE - \
> > > > MIN_TIMESLICE) * ((n) + 20)) / 39)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > NICE_TO_TIMESLICE(p->__nice)
> > >
> > > Not sure about this change. gkrellm shows the compile getting about 40%
> > > cpu. Best result here seems to be with a larger range of timeslices. ie
> > > 1-15 ((10*HZ)/1000...) instead lets the compile get 80% of the cpu.
> > > wonder if this might be the way to go?

The above macro is wrong, this is right :

#define NICE_TO_TIMESLICE(n) (MIN_TIMESLICE + ((MAX_TIMESLICE - \
MIN_TIMESLICE) * (19 - (n))) / 39)




- Davide


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:23    [W:0.064 / U:14.812 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site