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


Gene Heskett wrote:

>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.
>

Boot with "elevator=deadline" to use the more conventional elevator.

It would be good if you could get some numbers 2.4 vs 2.6, with and
without seti running. Sounds like a long cycle though so you probably
can't be bothered!


-
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:0.088 / U:9.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site