Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270649AbTG0CTT (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:19:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270650AbTG0CTT (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:19:19 -0400 Received: from c210-49-248-224.thoms1.vic.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.248.224]:60044 "EHLO mail.kolivas.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270649AbTG0CTS (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:19:18 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Andrew Morton , Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: Ingo Molnar and Con Kolivas 2.6 scheduler patches Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:38:37 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 Cc: ed.sweetman@wmich.edu, eugene.teo@eugeneteo.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1059211833.576.13.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> <200307271046.30318.phillips@arcor.de> <20030726113522.447578d8.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20030726113522.447578d8.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200307271238.37918.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1478 Lines: 29 On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 04:35, Andrew Morton wrote: > It is interesting that Felipe says that stock 2.5.69 was the best CPU > scheduler of the 2.5 series. Do others agree with that? Well this had the original tuning settings of 2 seconds for max sleep avg and starvation limit, and 95% for child penalty, which are the 2.4 O(1) settings. Interestingly, they are also what Ingo has put into the G3 patch (except for starvation limit), and account for a large part of the improvement in G3 as well as the increased resolution. > And what about the O(1) backports? RH and UL and -aa kernels? Are people > complaining about those kernels? If not, why? What is different? No, this is what I have been trying to figure out; why is it that if we put all the settings the same as 2.4 that it doesn't perform as nicely. 2.5/6 with the old settings is certainly better than with the vanilla settings, but not as good as 2.4 O(1). It does not appear to be scheduler alone, but the architectural changes to 2.5 that have changed interactivity are here to stay, and improving the interactivity estimator in the scheduler does help it anyway. It also gives us a chance to address certain corner cases that have always existed. Con - 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/