From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261410AbTHYDGF (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:06:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261413AbTHYDGF (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:06:05 -0400 Received: from dyn-ctb-210-9-243-120.webone.com.au ([210.9.243.120]:6916 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261410AbTHYDGC (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:06:02 -0400 Message-ID: <3F497CEC.3030507@cyberone.com.au> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:05:16 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030714 Debian/1.4-2 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Felipe Alfaro Solana CC: linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy References: <3F48B12F.4070001@cyberone.com.au> <1061735355.1034.2.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> In-Reply-To: <1061735355.1034.2.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote: >On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 14:35, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>Hi, >>Patch against 2.6.0-test4. It fixes a lot of problems here vs >>previous versions. There aren't really any open issues for me, so >>testers would be welcome. >> >>The big change is more dynamic timeslices, which allows "interactive" >>tasks to get very small timeslices while more compute intensive loads >>can be given bigger timeslices than usual. This works properly with >>nice (niced processes will tend to get bigger timeslices). >> >>I think I have cured test-starve too. >> > >I haven't still found any starvation cases, but forking time when the >system is under heavy load has increased considerable with respect to >vanilla or Con's O18.1int: > >1. On a Konsole session, run "while true; do a=2; done" >2. Now, try forming a new Konsole session and you'll see it takes >approximately twice the time it takes when the system is under no load. > Yeah, it probably penalises parents and children too much on fork, and doesn't penalise parents of exiting cpu hogs enough. I have noticed this too. > >Also, renicing X to -20 helps X interactivity, while with Con's patches, >renicing X to -20 makes it feel worse. > renicing IMO is a lot more sane in my patches, although others might disagree. In Con's patches, when you make X -20, it gets huge timeslices. In my version, it will get lots of smaller timeslices. Thanks again for testing. Nick