[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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, 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 Williams

"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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  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