Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 01:45:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 01:45:31 -0400 Received: from mail.ccur.com ([208.248.32.212]:38412 "EHLO exchange.ccur.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 01:45:29 -0400 Message-ID: <3D9BDAAA.B31E0D48@ccur.com> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 01:50:34 -0400 From: Jim Houston Reply-To: jim.houston@ccur.com Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.17 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrea Arcangeli CC: Jim Houston , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: O(1) Scheduler (tuning problem/live-lock) References: <200209061844.g86IiF701825@linux.local> <20020930161019.GH1235@dualathlon.random> <3D994CD9.3FDFA09F@ccur.com> <20021002064559.GB1158@dualathlon.random> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1649 Lines: 40 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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/