lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity
Date
On Tuesday 12 August 2003 22:08, jw schultz wrote:
>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.

In thinking about this from the aspect of what I do here, this makes
quite a bit of sense. In running 2.6.0-test3, with anticipatory
scheduler, it appears the i/o intensive tasks are being pushed back
in favor of interactivity, perhaps a bit too aggressively. An amanda
estimate phase, which turns tar loose on the drives, had to be
advanced to a -10 niceness for the whole tree of processes amanda
spawns before it began to impact the setiathome use as shown by the
nice display in gkrellm. Normally there is a period for maybe 20
minutes before the tape drive fires up where the machine is virtually
unusable due to gzip hogging things, like the cpu, during which time
seti could just as easily be swapped out. It remained at around 60%!

It did not hog/lag near as badly as usual, and the amanda run was over
an hour longer than it would have been in 2.4.22-rc2.

It is my opinion that all this should have been at setiathomes
expense, which is also rather cpu intensive, but it didn't seem to be
without lots of forceing. This is what the original concept of
niceness was all about. Or at least that was my impression. From
what it feels like here, it seems the i/o stuff is whats being
choked, and choked pretty badly when using the anticipatory
scheduler.

I've read rumors that a boottime option can switch it to somethng
else, so what do I do to switch it from the anticipatory scheduler to
whatever the alternate is?, so that I can get a feel for the other
methods and results.

--
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz 512M
99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

-
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:0.172 / U:28.572 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site