From: Jim Houston <jim.houston@ccur.com> To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> Cc: Jim Houston <jim.houston@attbi.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Subject: Re: O(1) Scheduler (tuning problem/live-lock) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 01:50:34 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <3D9BDAAA.B31E0D48@ccur.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20021002064559.GB1158@dualathlon.random> Hi Andrea, Ingo, Andrea, I tried your second patch. Again, it keeps on running even with "waitpid06 -c 16 -i 10000". This is good. It still has some jerky mouse behavior (under this load). This is on an old slow Pentium Pro dual processor. If I grab a window and move it around for several seconds, the screen will freeze for a couple seconds. I suspect that my X server fails the TASK_INTERACTIVE test. I have been hacking at sched.c myself trying to avoid the array switch entirely. I'm trying to set up a self-tuning feedback mechanism to adjust priorities so everything gets some cpu time without having to do the array switch. I'm juggling these ideas: 1. Gradually raise the priority of all the processes in the run queue. Do this without having to visit all of the processes. 2. When a process uses up its time slice, move it to a less favorable priority. 3. Tune the sleep_avg. I like the old decaying average approach of old unix systems. The current sleep_avg goes to saturation too often. I would like to be able to tell if a process has been using more than its share of the cpu time. 4. Make the maximum time slice decrease with more favorable priorities. The time slice would depend on the dynamic priority. I have code hacked together for first idea but its not useful without the rest. Jim Houston - Concurrent Computer Corp.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-10-03 5:45 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2002-09-06 18:44 Jim Houston 2002-09-30 16:10 ` Andrea Arcangeli 2002-10-01 7:20 ` Jim Houston 2002-10-02 6:45 ` Andrea Arcangeli 2002-10-03 5:50 ` Jim Houston [this message]
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=3D9BDAAA.B31E0D48@ccur.com \ --to=jim.houston@ccur.com \ --cc=andrea@suse.de \ --cc=jim.houston@attbi.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mingo@elte.hu \ --subject='Re: O(1) Scheduler (tuning problem/live-lock)' \ /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
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).