[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy

Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:

>On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 14:35, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>Patch against 2.6.0-test4. It fixes a lot of problems here vs
>>previous versions. There aren't really any open issues for me, so
>>testers would be welcome.
>>The big change is more dynamic timeslices, which allows "interactive"
>>tasks to get very small timeslices while more compute intensive loads
>>can be given bigger timeslices than usual. This works properly with
>>nice (niced processes will tend to get bigger timeslices).
>>I think I have cured test-starve too.
>I haven't still found any starvation cases, but forking time when the
>system is under heavy load has increased considerable with respect to
>vanilla or Con's O18.1int:
>1. On a Konsole session, run "while true; do a=2; done"
>2. Now, try forming a new Konsole session and you'll see it takes
>approximately twice the time it takes when the system is under no load.

Yeah, it probably penalises parents and children too much on fork, and
doesn't penalise parents of exiting cpu hogs enough. I have noticed
this too.

>Also, renicing X to -20 helps X interactivity, while with Con's patches,
>renicing X to -20 makes it feel worse.

renicing IMO is a lot more sane in my patches, although others might
disagree. In Con's patches, when you make X -20, it gets huge timeslices.
In my version, it will get lots of smaller timeslices.

Thanks again for testing.


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 13:48    [W:0.101 / U:3.928 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site