[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
    On Mon, Sep 07 2009, Avi Kivity wrote:
    > On 09/07/2009 12:49 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
    >> I ran a simple test as well, since I was curious to see how it performed
    >> wrt interactiveness. One of my pet peeves with the current scheduler is
    >> that I have to nice compile jobs, or my X experience is just awful while
    >> the compile is running.
    > I think the problem is that CFS is optimizing for the wrong thing. It's
    > trying to be fair to tasks, but these are meaningless building blocks of
    > jobs, which is what the user sees and measures. Your make -j128
    > dominates your interactive task by two orders of magnitude. If the
    > scheduler attempts to bridge this gap using heuristics, it will fail
    > badly when it misdetects since it will starve the really important
    > 100-thread job for a task that was misdetected as interactive.

    Agree, I was actually looking into doing joint latency for X number of
    tasks for the test app. I'll try and do that and see if we can detect
    something from that.

    Jens Axboe

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-09-07 20:49    [W:0.019 / U:7.632 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site