From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965992AbXCPWaW (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:30:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965994AbXCPWaW (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:30:22 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:57436 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S965992AbXCPWaW (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:30:22 -0400 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18Pd9ZB1jQP98w5FRCnoisP3M8OuHdj7nKSb77X4m 189GXfgYSKE5kL Subject: Re: RSDL v0.31 From: Mike Galbraith To: Con Kolivas Cc: ck@vds.kolivas.org, Ingo Molnar , Al Boldi , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200703170813.32594.kernel@kolivas.org> References: <200703042335.26785.a1426z@gawab.com> <200703170040.48316.kernel@kolivas.org> <1174059299.7886.25.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <200703170813.32594.kernel@kolivas.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:30:07 +0100 Message-Id: <1174084207.7009.9.camel@Homer.simpson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 08:13 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Saturday 17 March 2007 02:34, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 00:40 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > Here are full patches for rsdl 0.31 for various base kernels. A full > > > announce with a fresh -mm series will follow... > > > > > > http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20.3-rsdl-0.31.patch > > > http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-rc3-sched-rsdl-0. > > >31.patch > > > http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-rc3-mm2-rsdl-0.31 > > >.patch > > > > It still has trouble with the x/gforce vs two niced encoders scenario. > > The previously reported choppiness is still present. > > > > I suspect that x/gforce landing in the expired array is the trouble, and > > that this will never be smooth without some kind of exemption. I added > > some targeted unfairness to .30, and it didn't help much at all. > > > > Priorities going all the way to 1 were a surprise. > > It wasn't going to change that case without renicing X. Con. You are trying to wedge a fair scheduler into an environment where totally fair simply can not possibly function. If this is your final answer to the problem space, I am done testing, and as far as _I_ am concerned, your scheduler is an utter failure. -Mike