From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750895AbXCLSKa (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:10:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750913AbXCLSKa (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:10:30 -0400 Received: from mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.185]:58621 "EHLO mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750893AbXCLSK3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:10:29 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 0/7] RSDL cpu scheduler for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:09:45 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Ingo Molnar , Mike Galbraith , linux kernel mailing list , ck list , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton References: <200703111457.17624.kernel@kolivas.org> <200703122223.07048.kernel@kolivas.org> <20070312134806.GE4372@thunk.org> In-Reply-To: <20070312134806.GE4372@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703130509.45405.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 13 March 2007 00:48, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:23:06PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > > We are getting good interactive response with a fair scheduler yet > > > > > you seem intent on overloading it to find fault with it. > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to find fault, I'm TESTING AND REPORTING. Was. > > > > > > Con, could you please take Mike's report of this regression seriously > > > and address it? Thanks, > > > > Sure. > > > > Mike the cpu is being proportioned out perfectly according to fairness as > > I mentioned in the prior email, yet X is getting the lower latency > > scheduling. I'm not sure within the bounds of fairness what more would > > you have happen to your liking with this test case? > > Con, > > I think what we're discovering is that a "fair scheduler" is > not going to cut it. After all, running X and ripping CD's and MP3 > encoding them is not exactly an esoteric use case. And like it or > not, "nice" defaults to 4. > > I suspect Mike is right; the only way to deal with this > regression is some scheduler hints from the desktop subsystem (i.e., X > and friends). Yes, X is broken, it's horrible, yadda, yadda, yadda. > It's also what everyone is using, and it's a fact of life. Just like > we occasionally have had to work around ISA braindamage, and x86 > architecture braindamage, and ACPI braindamage all inflicted on us by > Intel. This is just life, and sometimes the clean, elegant solution > is not enough. Instead of assuming it's bad, have you tried RSDL for yourself? Mike is using 2 lame threads for his test case. -- -ck