From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
Cc: "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.0 batch scheduling, HT aware
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:16:58 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200312231416.58998.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200312231415.38611.kernel@kolivas.org>
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:15, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:57, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:36, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > >>Con Kolivas wrote:
> > >>>I discussed this with Ingo and that's the sort of thing we thought of.
> > >>>Perhaps a relative crossover of 10 dynamic priorities and an absolute
> > >>>crossover of 5 static priorities before things got queued together.
> > >>> This is really only required for the UP HT case.
> > >>
> > >>Well I guess it would still be nice for "SMP HT" as well. Hopefully the
> > >>code can be generic enough that it would just carry over nicely.
> > >
> > >I disagree. I can't think of a real world scenario where 2+ physical
> > > cpus would benefit from this.
> >
> > Well its the same problem. A nice -20 process can still lose 40-55% of
> > its performance to a nice 19 process, a figure of 10% is probably too
> > high and we'd really want it <= 5% like what happens with a single
> > logical processor.
>
> I changed my mind just after I sent that mail. 4 physical cores running
> three nice 20 and one nice -20 task gives the nice -20 task only 25% of the
> total cpu and 25% to each of the nice 20 tasks.
Err that should read 4 logical cores.
Con
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-12-23 3:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-12-23 0:38 [PATCH] 2.6.0 batch scheduling, HT aware Con Kolivas
2003-12-23 1:11 ` Nick Piggin
2003-12-23 1:24 ` Con Kolivas
2003-12-23 1:36 ` Nick Piggin
2003-12-23 2:42 ` Con Kolivas
2003-12-23 2:57 ` Nick Piggin
2003-12-23 3:15 ` Con Kolivas
2003-12-23 3:16 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2003-12-26 23:03 ` Pavel Machek
2003-12-23 15:51 ` bill davidsen
2003-12-23 22:09 ` Con Kolivas
2003-12-30 0:35 ` bill davidsen
2004-01-02 20:10 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-12-26 22:56 ` Pavel Machek
2003-12-26 23:42 ` Con Kolivas
2003-12-26 23:49 ` Con Kolivas
2003-12-27 11:09 ` Pavel Machek
2003-12-27 11:15 ` Con Kolivas
2003-12-30 0:29 ` bill davidsen
2003-12-29 7:02 ` Nick Piggin
2003-12-29 12:49 ` Pavel Machek
2003-12-27 8:52 ` Mika Penttilä
2003-12-30 0:32 ` bill davidsen
2004-01-02 20:05 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-01-02 20:56 ` Davide Libenzi
2004-01-02 21:10 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-01-02 23:34 ` Davide Libenzi
2003-12-23 1:59 Nakajima, Jun
2003-12-23 2:40 ` Nick Piggin
2003-12-23 5:33 Nakajima, Jun
2003-12-23 10:13 ` Nick Piggin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200312231416.58998.kernel@kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=jun.nakajima@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).