lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity
    On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 09:58:04PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > I have been hearing of people complaining the scheduler is worse than
    > 2.4 so its not entirely obvious to me. But yeah lots of it is trial and
    > error, so I'm not saying Con is wasting his time.

    I've been watching Con and Ingo's efforts with the process
    scheduler and i haven't seen people complaining that the
    process scheduler is worse. They have complained that
    interactive processes seem to have more latency. Con has
    rightly questioned whether that might be because the process
    scheduler has less control over CPU time allocation than in
    2.4. Remember that the process scheduler only manages the
    CPU time not spent in I/O and other overhead.

    If there is something in BIO chewing cycles it will wreak
    havoc with latency no matter what you do about process
    scheduling. The work on BIO to improve bandwidth and reduce
    latency was Herculean but the growing performance gap
    between CPU and I/O is a formidable challenge.


    --
    ________________________________________________________________
    J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
    email address: jw@pegasys.ws

    Remember Cernan and Schmitt
    -
    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 13:47    [W:0.030 / U:121.236 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site