From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965548AbXCVAZu (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:25:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965564AbXCVAZu (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:25:50 -0400 Received: from mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.187]:48708 "EHLO mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965548AbXCVAZt (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:25:49 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Jeffrey Hundstad Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: rsdl improvements Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:24:58 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Artur Skawina , linux list , ck list , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton References: <200703220429.45311.kernel@kolivas.org> <4601BF45.7070708@o2.pl> <4601C44B.9060705@mnsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <4601C44B.9060705@mnsu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703221124.59126.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. -- -ck