[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [CFT][PATCH] new scheduler policy

William Lee Irwin III wrote:

>On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:53:01AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>As per the latest trend these days, I've done some tinkering with
>>the cpu scheduler. I have gone in the opposite direction of most
>>of the recent stuff and come out with something that can be nearly
>>as good interactivity wise (for me).
>>I haven't run many tests on it - my mind blanked when I tried to
>>remember the scores of scheduler "exploits" thrown around. So if
>>anyone would like to suggest some, or better still, run some,
>>please do so. And be nice, this isn't my type of scheduler :P
>>It still does have a few things that need fixing but I thought
>>I'd get my first hack a bit of exercise.
>>Its against 2.6.0-test3-mm1
>Say, any chance you could spray out a brief explanation of your new

Oh alright. BTW, this one's not for your big boxes yet! It does funny
things with timeslices. But they will be (pending free time) made much
more dynamic, so it should _hopefully_ context switch even less than
the normal scheduler in a compute intensive load.

OK. timeslices: they are now dynamic. Full priority tasks will get
100ms, minimum priority tasks 10ms (this is what needs fixing, but
should be OK to test "interactiveness")

interactivity estimator is gone: grep -i interactiv sched.c | wc -l
gives 0.

priorities are much the same, although processes are supposed to be
able to change priority much more quickly.

backboost is back. that is what (hopefully) prevents X from starving
due to the quickly changing priorities thing.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.153 / U:10.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site