Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:46:18 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [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 >heuristics? >
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 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/
| |