Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:08:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:08:11 -0500 Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com ([24.136.46.5]:49938 "EHLO svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:08:10 -0500 Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] scheduler tunables with contest - prio_bonus_ratio From: Robert Love To: Con Kolivas Cc: linux kernel mailing list In-Reply-To: <200212201104.28863.conman@kolivas.net> References: <200212200850.32886.conman@kolivas.net> <200212201042.48161.conman@kolivas.net> <1040341995.2521.81.camel@phantasy> <200212201104.28863.conman@kolivas.net> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1040343375.2519.87.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.1 Date: 19 Dec 2002 19:16:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 810 Lines: 21 On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 19:04, Con Kolivas wrote: > Thanks. That looks fair enough. My only concern is that io_load performance is > worse with lower prio_bonus_ratio settings and io loads are the most felt. > > I was thinking of changing what it varied. I was going to leave the timeslice > fixed and use it to change the prio_bonus_ratio under load. Although that > kind of defeats the purpose of having it in the first place since it is > supposed to decide what is interactive under load? Yep. You want to find good defaults that just work. Robert Love - 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/