lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: is RSDL an "unfair" scheduler too?
    From
    On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 06:24:40AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
    > > Dunno. I guess a lot of people would like to then manage the classes,
    > > which would be painful as hell.
    >
    > Sure ! I wouldn't like people to point the finger on Linux saying "hey
    > look, they can't write a good scheduler so you have to adjust the knobs
    > yourself!". I keep in mind that Solaris' scheduler is very good, both
    > fair and interactive. FreeBSD was good (I haven't tested for a long time).
    > We should manage to get something good for most usages, and optimize
    > later for specific uses.

    Like I've said in a previous email, SGI schedulers have an interactive
    term in addition to the normal "nice" values. If RSDL ends up being too
    rigid for desktop use, then this might be a good idea to explore in
    addition to priority manipulation.

    However, it hasn't been completely proven that RSDL can't handle desktop
    loads and that needs to be completely explored first. It certain seems
    like, from the .jpgs that were posted earlier in the thread regarding mysql
    performance, that RSDL seems to have improved performance for those set
    ups so it's not universally the case that it sucks for server loads. The
    cause of this performance difference has yet to be pinpointed.

    Also, bandwidth scheduler like this are a new critical development for
    things like the -rt patch. It would benefit greatly if the RSDL basic
    mechanisms (RR and deadlines) were to somehow slip into that patch and
    be used for a more strict -rt based scheduling class. It would be the basis
    for first-class control over process resource usage and would be a first
    in Linux or any mainstream kernel.

    This would be a powerful addition to Linux as a whole and RSDL should
    not be dismissed without these considerations. If it can somehow be
    integrated into the kernel with interactivity concerns addressed, then
    it would be an all out win for the kernel in both these areas.

    bill

    -
    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: 2007-03-18 07:13    [W:2.178 / U:0.132 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site