From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:06:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:06:15 -0500 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:12779 "HELO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:06:14 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:16:53 +0100 (CET) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: Mike Galbraith Cc: Steven Cole , Ed Tomlinson , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel , Subject: Re: 2.5.65-mm2 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030320194530.01985440@pop.gmx.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Mike Galbraith wrote: > [...] Virgin .65 is also subject to the positive feedback loop (irman's > process load is worst case methinks, and rounding down only ~hides it). there's no positive feedback loop. What might happen is that in 2.5.65 we now distribute the bonus timeslices more widely (the backboost thing), so certain workloads might be rated more interactive. But we never give away timeslices that were not earned the hard way (ie. via actual sleeping). i've attached a patch that temporarily turns off the back-boost - does that have any measurable impact? [please apply this to -mm1, i do think the timeslice-granularity change in -mm1 (-D3) is something we really want.] Ingo --- kernel/sched.c.orig 2003-03-21 07:14:02.000000000 +0100 +++ kernel/sched.c 2003-03-21 07:15:08.000000000 +0100 @@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ * tasks. */ if (sleep_avg > MAX_SLEEP_AVG) { - if (!in_interrupt()) { + if (0 && !in_interrupt()) { sleep_avg += current->sleep_avg - MAX_SLEEP_AVG; if (sleep_avg > MAX_SLEEP_AVG) sleep_avg = MAX_SLEEP_AVG; From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:16:53 +0100 (CET) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: 2.5.65-mm2 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030320194530.01985440@pop.gmx.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mike Galbraith Cc: Steven Cole , Ed Tomlinson , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Mike Galbraith wrote: > [...] Virgin .65 is also subject to the positive feedback loop (irman's > process load is worst case methinks, and rounding down only ~hides it). there's no positive feedback loop. What might happen is that in 2.5.65 we now distribute the bonus timeslices more widely (the backboost thing), so certain workloads might be rated more interactive. But we never give away timeslices that were not earned the hard way (ie. via actual sleeping). i've attached a patch that temporarily turns off the back-boost - does that have any measurable impact? [please apply this to -mm1, i do think the timeslice-granularity change in -mm1 (-D3) is something we really want.] Ingo --- kernel/sched.c.orig 2003-03-21 07:14:02.000000000 +0100 +++ kernel/sched.c 2003-03-21 07:15:08.000000000 +0100 @@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ * tasks. */ if (sleep_avg > MAX_SLEEP_AVG) { - if (!in_interrupt()) { + if (0 && !in_interrupt()) { sleep_avg += current->sleep_avg - MAX_SLEEP_AVG; if (sleep_avg > MAX_SLEEP_AVG) sleep_avg = MAX_SLEEP_AVG; -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org