From: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:00:06 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3F497BB6.90100@cyberone.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <29760000.1061744102@[10.10.2.4]>
Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>Seems to do badly with CPU intensive tasks:
>
>Kernbench: (make -j vmlinux, maximal tasks)
> Elapsed System User CPU
> 2.6.0-test3 46.00 115.49 571.94 1494.25
> 2.6.0-test4-nick 49.37 131.31 611.15 1500.75
>
Thanks Martin.
>
>Oddly, schedule itself is significantly cheaper, but you seem
>to end up with much more expense elsewhere. Thrashing tasks between
>CPUs, maybe (esp given the increased user time)? I'll do a proper
>baseline against test4, but I don't expect it to be any different, really.
>
Yeah I'd say most if not all would be my fault though. What happens
is that a lowest priority process will get a 1ms timeslice if there
is a highest priority process on the same runqueue, though it will
get I think 275ms if there are only other low priority processes
there.
A kernbench probably has enough IO to keep priorities up a bit and
keep timeslices short. The timeslice stuff could probably still use
a bit of tuning. On the other hand, nice -20 processes should get
big timeslices, while other schedulers give them small timeslices.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-25 3:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-08-24 12:35 [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy Nick Piggin
2003-08-24 14:29 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-08-25 3:05 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-25 22:30 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-08-24 16:55 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-08-25 3:00 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2003-08-25 10:41 ` [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy v7 Nick Piggin
2003-08-25 11:03 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-08-25 14:36 ` Måns Rullgård
2003-08-26 3:24 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-08-26 4:04 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-26 9:44 ` Yaroslav Rastrigin
2003-08-27 9:28 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-25 3:27 ` [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy Randy.Dunlap
2003-08-25 3:36 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-26 3:16 ` Mike Fedyk
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=3F497BB6.90100@cyberone.com.au \
--to=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
/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).