lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: rsdl improvements
Date
On Thursday 22 March 2007 11:24, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Thursday 22 March 2007 10:48, Jeffrey Hundstad wrote:
> > Artur Skawina wrote:
> > > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > >> Note no interactive boost idea here.
> > >>
> > >> Patch is for 2.6.21-rc4-mm1. I have not spent the time trying to bring
> > >> other bases in sync.
> > >
> > > I've tried RSDLv.31+this on 2.6.20.3 as i'm not tracking -mm.
> > >
> > >> Further improve the deterministic nature of the RSDL cpu scheduler and
> > >> make the rr_interval tunable.
> > >>
> > >> By only giving out priority slots to tasks at the current runqueue's
> > >> prio_level or below we can make the cpu allocation not altered by
> > >> accounting issues across major_rotation periods. This makes the cpu
> > >> allocation and latencies more deterministic, and decreases maximum
> > >> latencies substantially. This change removes the possibility that
> > >> tasks can get bursts of cpu activity which can favour towards
> > >> interactive tasks but also favour towards cpu bound tasks which happen
> > >> to wait on other activity (such as I/O) and is a net gain.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure this is going in the right direction... I'm writing
> > > this while compiling a kernel w/ "nice -20 make -j2" and X is almost
> >
> > Did you mean "nice -20"? If so, that should have slowed X quite a bit.
> > Try "nice 19" instead.
> >
> > nice(1):
> > Run COMMAND with an adjusted niceness, which affects process
> > scheduling. With no COMMAND, print the current niceness. Nicenesses
> > range from -20 (most favorable scheduling) to 19 (least favorable).
>
> No he's right. Something scrambled my brain and I've completely left out
> the part where I offer the old bursts as a tunable option as well, which
> unintentionally killed off SCHED_BATCH as an entity. I'll have to put that
> as an additional patch sorry as this by itself is not always a win. Hang in
> there.

Actually, reworking the priority matrix to always have a slot at position 1
should fix this without needing a tunable. That is a better approach so I'll
do that.

--
-ck
-
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: 2007-03-22 01:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans