From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965197AbXCVAxo (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:53:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965475AbXCVAxo (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:53:44 -0400 Received: from mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.184]:53725 "EHLO mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965197AbXCVAxn (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:53:43 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Jeffrey Hundstad Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: rsdl improvements Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:52:44 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Artur Skawina , linux list , ck list , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton References: <200703220429.45311.kernel@kolivas.org> <4601C44B.9060705@mnsu.edu> <200703221124.59126.kernel@kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: <200703221124.59126.kernel@kolivas.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703221152.45141.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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