lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.051 / U:1.320 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site