Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:07:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:07:25 -0500 Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com ([24.136.46.5]:15121 "EHLO svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:07:24 -0500 Subject: Re: [patch] "HT scheduler", sched-2.5.63-B3 From: Robert Love To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20030306124257.4bf29c6c.akpm@digeo.com> References: <20030228202555.4391bf87.akpm@digeo.com> <20030306124257.4bf29c6c.akpm@digeo.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1046989091.715.46.camel@phantasy.awol.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-3) Date: 06 Mar 2003 17:18:11 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1510 Lines: 40 On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 15:42, Andrew Morton wrote: > So I'm a happy camper, and will be using Ingo's combo patch. But I do not > use XMMS and xine and things like that - they may be running like crap with > these patches. I do not know, and I do not have a base to compare against > even if I could work out how to get them going. Linus, This is great for me, too. I played around with some mp3 playing and did the akpm-window-wiggle test. It is definitely the smoothest. I think we definitely need Ingo's tweaked scheduler parameters - I have been running a similar set of values myself for some time. But your patch seems to make the difference. This is the most subject stuff on the planet, but here is a rough ranking of interactivity performance in the bad cases on a scale of 1 (worse) to 5 (best): linus-patch + tweaked-parameters: 5 linus-patch: 4 tweaked-parameters + reniced X: 3.5 tweaked-parameters: 2.5 stock: 1 Sorry, did not test Ingo's full patch. It is basically the tweaked parameters plus the sync wakeup which looks correct. In the average case, the O(1) scheduler does fine without any changes. The heuristic works. It is just the worst-case cases where we need help, and from above I think we have that. 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/