Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:05:16 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy |
| |
Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
>On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 14:35, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>Hi, >>Patch against 2.6.0-test4. It fixes a lot of problems here vs >>previous versions. There aren't really any open issues for me, so >>testers would be welcome. >> >>The big change is more dynamic timeslices, which allows "interactive" >>tasks to get very small timeslices while more compute intensive loads >>can be given bigger timeslices than usual. This works properly with >>nice (niced processes will tend to get bigger timeslices). >> >>I think I have cured test-starve too. >> > >I haven't still found any starvation cases, but forking time when the >system is under heavy load has increased considerable with respect to >vanilla or Con's O18.1int: > >1. On a Konsole session, run "while true; do a=2; done" >2. Now, try forming a new Konsole session and you'll see it takes >approximately twice the time it takes when the system is under no load. >
Yeah, it probably penalises parents and children too much on fork, and doesn't penalise parents of exiting cpu hogs enough. I have noticed this too.
> >Also, renicing X to -20 helps X interactivity, while with Con's patches, >renicing X to -20 makes it feel worse. >
renicing IMO is a lot more sane in my patches, although others might disagree. In Con's patches, when you make X -20, it gets huge timeslices. In my version, it will get lots of smaller timeslices.
Thanks again for testing.
Nick
- 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/
| |