lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair
Date
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 10:21:00PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > [announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler
> > [CFS] i'm pleased to announce the first release of the "Modular
> > Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]" patchset:
> > http://redhat.com/~mingo/cfs-scheduler/sched-modular+cfs.patch
> > This project is a complete rewrite of the Linux task scheduler. My goal
> > is to address various feature requests and to fix deficiencies in the
> > vanilla scheduler that were suggested/found in the past few years, both
> > for desktop scheduling and for server scheduling workloads.
> > [ QuickStart: apply the patch to v2.6.21-rc6, recompile, reboot. The
> > new scheduler will be active by default and all tasks will default
> > to the new SCHED_FAIR interactive scheduling class. ]
>
> A pleasant surprise, though I did see it coming.

Same here, but I didn't expect it so soon. Thanks!

> > The CFS patch uses a completely different approach and implementation
> > from RSDL/SD. My goal was to make CFS's interactivity quality exceed
> > that of RSDL/SD, which is a high standard to meet :-) Testing
> > feedback is welcome to decide this one way or another.

I slammed this patch on 2.6.20.6 with some ugly rejects but it did compile,
then tested, so my results may be affected by the rejects.

Boot into /bin/sh.
Run chew.c on three different VT's with different nice each. Observe.

Console 1:
pid 615, prio 19, out for 19 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 4%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 19 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 4%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 19 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 4%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 19 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 4%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 77 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 1%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 125 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 0%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 209 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 0%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 346 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 0%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 552 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 0%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 882 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 0%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 1231 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 0%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 1335 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 0%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 1218 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 0%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 1254 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 0%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 1774 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 0%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 1946 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 0%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 1942 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 0%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 2749 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 0%
pid 615, prio 19, out for 3217 ms, ran for 0 ms, load 0%

Console 2:
pid 616, prio 0, out for 8 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 26%
pid 616, prio 0, out for 9 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 24%
pid 616, prio 0, out for 8 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 26%
pid 616, prio 0, out for 9 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 24%
pid 616, prio 0, out for 8 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 26%
pid 616, prio 0, out for 8 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 26%
pid 616, prio 0, out for 9 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 24%
pid 616, prio 0, out for 8 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 26%
pid 616, prio 0, out for 8 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 24%
pid 616, prio 0, out for 8 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 26%
pid 616, prio 0, out for 8 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 26%
pid 616, prio 0, out for 8 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 24%
pid 616, prio 0, out for 8 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 26%
pid 616, prio 0, out for 8 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 24%
pid 616, prio 0, out for 7 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 26%
pid 616, prio 0, out for 8 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 26%
pid 616, prio 0, out for 9 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 24%
pid 616, prio 0, out for 5 ms, ran for 2 ms, load 26%

Console 3:
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 8 ms, load 74%
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 7 ms, load 72%
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 7 ms, load 72%
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 8 ms, load 74%
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 7 ms, load 72%
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 8 ms, load 74%
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 7 ms, load 72%
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 7 ms, load 72%
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 8 ms, load 74%
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 7 ms, load 72%
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 8 ms, load 74%
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 7 ms, load 72%
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 7 ms, load 72%
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 8 ms, load 74%
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 7 ms, load 72%
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 8 ms, load 74%
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 7 ms, load 72%
pid 617, prio -10, out for 3 ms, ran for 7 ms, load 72%

It looks like negative nice affects positive nice adversely.

> > CFS's design is quite radical: it does not use runqueues, it uses a
> > time-ordered rbtree to build a 'timeline' of future task execution,
> > and thus has no 'array switch' artifacts (by which both the vanilla
> > scheduler and RSDL/SD are affected).

Sounds interresting, but it looks like CPU-bound procs easily steal sleeping
proc timeslices, thus making it rather unfair, affecting interactivity.

The latencies look great, though.

Also, it may be useful to lower-bound timeslices, as they become ridiculously
small ( < 1ms ).


Thanks!

--
Al

-
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: 2007-04-15 08:31    [W:0.081 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site