Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH]O20int | Date | Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:27:29 +1000 |
| |
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:12, Mike Fedyk wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 08:55:45AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 05:19, Mike Fedyk wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 12:53:10AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > Smaller timeslice granularity for most interactive tasks and larger > > > > for less interactive. Smaller for each extra cpu. > > > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > > > +#define TIMESLICE_GRANULARITY(p) \ > > > > + (MIN_TIMESLICE * (1 << (MAX_BONUS - CURRENT_BONUS(p))) * \ > > > > + num_online_cpus()) > > > > +#else > > > > +#define TIMESLICE_GRANULARITY(p) \ > > > > + (MIN_TIMESLICE * (1 << (MAX_BONUS - CURRENT_BONUS(p)))) > > > > +#endif > > > > + > > > > > > Don't you want to put a max(10,TIMESLICE_GRANULARITY) in there so that > > > the time slice won't go below 1ms for large proc servers? I'm not sure > > > if it was you, or someone else but they did some testing to see how the > > > timeslice length affected the cache warmth, and the major improvements > > > stopped after 7ms, so 10 might be a good default mimimum. > > > > That works out to 10ms minimum. > > With how many processors? 64? 128?
1 cpu = 10ms minimum 2 cpus = 20ms minimum and so on.
MIN_TIMESLICE * (1 << (MAX_BONUS - CURRENT_BONUS(p))) * num_online_cpus())
works out to: 10 * num_online_cpus() as the minimum
and
10 * 1024 * num_online_cpus()
as the maximum
Con
- 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/
| |