Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:47:59 +1000 | From | Peter Williams <> | Subject | Re: Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series (Attn: Nick Piggin and others) |
| |
Peter Williams wrote: > William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 07:21:43PM -0700, spaminos-ker@yahoo.com wrote: >> >>> I am not very familiar with all the parameters, so I just kept the >>> defaults >>> Anything else I could try? >>> Nicolas >> >> >> >> No. It appeared that the SPA bits had sufficient fairness in them to >> pass this test but apparently not quite enough. >> > > The interactive bonus may interfere with fairness (the throughput bonus > should actually help it for tasks with equal nice) so you could try > setting max_ia_bonus to zero (and possibly increasing max_tpt_bonus). > With "eb" mode this should still give good interactive response but > expect interactive response to suffer a little in "pb" mode however > renicing the X server to a negative value should help.
I should also have mentioned that fiddling with the promotion interval may help.
Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce
- 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/
|  |