Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:53:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:53:37 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com ([204.127.198.38]:59275 "EHLO rwcrmhc51.attbi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:53:36 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6E6B81.4E7CD256@attbi.com> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:04:33 -0500 From: Jim Houston Reply-To: jim.houston@attbi.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.5.64bk4 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] self tuning scheduler 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: 1729 Lines: 42 Hi Mike I made a bit of progress on understanding the irman problem with my scheduler change. When I run irman and top, the processes end up with priorities like: irman parent 36 irman child 21 process_child 31-33 (group of 9 processes) Since I expanded the range of priorities (to 0-79) these are quite favorable priorities. They are all have MAX_SLEEP_AVG bonus equivelent of nice +10. It's a priority inversion problem. The irman child is waiting for a read. The process_child processes are happly running as a group at approximately the same priority. The irman parent is starved because it is at a lower priority. It is at a lower priority because it uses more cpu on each pass. It is doing the gettimeofday calls while the child only does the pipe read & write. The parent gets an occasional boost from the fairness_update() code so it doesn't totally starve. I'm contemplating making synchronous wakeups share the run_avg between the processes so that groups of cooperating processes would clump at the same priority. I also wonder about trying to detect cycles of synchronous wakeups. It seems that a group of processes passing a token should be treated as compute bound. I'm still playing with the "make -j 30". I can adjust the priority range where I start enforcing interactive behavior. I may wire it into the rq->prio_avg. I assume that you can tolerate a bit more timing jitter when doing a "make -j 30". 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/