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    [W:0.026 / U:0.312 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site