Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Apr 2007 21:05:22 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [test] sched: SD-latest versus Mike's latest |
| |
* Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:
> Nice -10 on mainline ruins the latency of nice 0 tasks unlike SD. New > scheduling class just for X? Sounds like a very complicated > userspace-changing way to just do the equivalent of "nice -n -10" > obfuscated.
i think you are missing the point. We _do not know in advance_ whether X should be prioritized or not. It's the behavior of X that determines it. When X is reniced to -10 it fixes a few corner cases, but it breaks many other cases. We found that out time and time again.
btw., the tests i've done were not with X but using a shell prompt.
> > re-testing the weak points of SD: > > > > - hackbench: still unusable under such type of high load - no > > improvement. > > Load of 160. Is proportional slowdown bad?
this is relative to how mainline+Mike's handles it. Users wont really care about the why's, they'll only see the slowdown.
> > - make -j: still less interactive than Mike's - no improvement. > > Depends on how big your job number vs cpu is. The better the > throttling gets with mainline the better SD gets in this comparison. > At equal fairness mainline does not have the low latency interactivity > SD has.
i often run make jobs with -j200 or larger, and SD gets worse than even mainline much sooner than that.
Ingo - 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/
| |