lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Problem with the O(1) scheduler in 2.4.19

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Tobias Ringstrom wrote:

> For the case of a game server, this means that when the CPU utilization
> gets above 50% (roughly), it will switch from -5 to +5 in dynamic
> priority in a few seconds and stay there until the CPU utilization drops
> under 50%.
>
> Is my analysis correct, and is this what we want?

do you expect a task that uses up 50% CPU time over an extended period of
time to be rated 'interactive'?

we might make the '50%' rule to be '100% / nr_running_avg', so that if
your task is the only one in the system then it gets rated interactive -
but i suspect it will still be rated a CPU hog if it keeps trying to use
up 50% of CPU time even during busier periods. I have tried the
(1/nr_running) rule in earlier incarnations of the scheduler, and it didnt
make much difference, but we obviously need a boundary case like yours to
see the differences.

> I tried that yesterday (without the O(1) scheduler), and it does wonders
> for the in-game latency (i.e. ping). I suppose that the dynamic prio
> will still be +5 at 70% CPU utilization even with a HZ of 1000 using the
> O(1) scheduler. Why would it make a difference?

(it could in theory make a difference in some rare cases, in which the
frequency of sampling resonates with internal timings of the application -
i asked for this only to make sure there are no interactions.)

Ingo

-
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 13:28    [W:0.127 / U:1.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site