From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S275351AbTHSFRn (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 01:17:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S275340AbTHSFRn (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 01:17:43 -0400 Received: from waste.org ([209.173.204.2]:4785 "EHLO waste.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S275351AbTHSFQD (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 01:16:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:15:33 -0500 From: Matt Mackall To: Nick Piggin Cc: William Lee Irwin III , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [CFT][PATCH] new scheduler policy Message-ID: <20030819051533.GL16387@waste.org> References: <3F4182FD.3040900@cyberone.com.au> <20030819023536.GZ32488@holomorphy.com> <3F418F7A.7090007@cyberone.com.au> <3F4192AD.1020305@cyberone.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F4192AD.1020305@cyberone.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 12:59:57PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > > >William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > > >>On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:53:01AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > >> > >>>As per the latest trend these days, I've done some tinkering with > >>>the cpu scheduler. I have gone in the opposite direction of most > >>>of the recent stuff and come out with something that can be nearly > >>>as good interactivity wise (for me). > >>>I haven't run many tests on it - my mind blanked when I tried to > >>>remember the scores of scheduler "exploits" thrown around. So if > >>>anyone would like to suggest some, or better still, run some, > >>>please do so. And be nice, this isn't my type of scheduler :P > >>>It still does have a few things that need fixing but I thought > >>>I'd get my first hack a bit of exercise. > >>>Its against 2.6.0-test3-mm1 > >>> > >> > >>Say, any chance you could spray out a brief explanation of your new > >>heuristics? > >> > > > >Oh alright. BTW, this one's not for your big boxes yet! It does funny > >things with timeslices. But they will be (pending free time) made much > >more dynamic, so it should _hopefully_ context switch even less than > >the normal scheduler in a compute intensive load. > > > >OK. timeslices: they are now dynamic. Full priority tasks will get > >100ms, minimum priority tasks 10ms (this is what needs fixing, but > >should be OK to test "interactiveness") > > > >interactivity estimator is gone: grep -i interactiv sched.c | wc -l > >gives 0. > > > >priorities are much the same, although processes are supposed to be > >able to change priority much more quickly. > > > >backboost is back. that is what (hopefully) prevents X from starving > >due to the quickly changing priorities thing. > > And lack of interactivity estimator. You forgot to mention fork() splitting its timeslice 2/3 to 1/3 parent to child. -- Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : of or relating to the moon