From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270689AbTG0HYc (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2003 03:24:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270691AbTG0HYc (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2003 03:24:32 -0400 Received: from willy.net1.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60]:6408 "EHLO www.home.local") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270689AbTG0HYb (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2003 03:24:31 -0400 Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:39:20 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Con Kolivas Cc: Andrew Morton , Daniel Phillips , ed.sweetman@wmich.edu, eugene.teo@eugeneteo.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Ingo Molnar and Con Kolivas 2.6 scheduler patches Message-ID: <20030727073920.GG643@alpha.home.local> References: <1059211833.576.13.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> <200307271046.30318.phillips@arcor.de> <20030726113522.447578d8.akpm@osdl.org> <200307271238.37918.kernel@kolivas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200307271238.37918.kernel@kolivas.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Con, On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 12:38:37PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > No, this is what I have been trying to figure out; why is it that if we put > all the settings the same as 2.4 that it doesn't perform as nicely. 2.5/6 > with the old settings is certainly better than with the vanilla settings, but > not as good as 2.4 O(1). It does not appear to be scheduler alone, but the > architectural changes to 2.5 that have changed interactivity are here to > stay, and improving the interactivity estimator in the scheduler does help it > anyway. just a thought : have you tried to set the timer to 100Hz instead of 1kHz to compare with 2.4 ? It might make a difference too. Cheers, Willy