Message-ID: <3F4192AD.1020305@cyberone.com.au>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:59:57 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030618 Debian/1.3.1-3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
CC: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [CFT][PATCH] new scheduler policy
References: <3F4182FD.3040900@cyberone.com.au> <20030819023536.GZ32488@holomorphy.com> <3F418F7A.7090007@cyberone.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <3F418F7A.7090007@cyberone.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1945
Lines: 52


Nick Piggin wrote:

>
>
> William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:53:01AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>
>>> As per the latest trend these days, I've done some tinkering with
>>> the cpu scheduler. I have gone in the opposite direction of most
>>> of the recent stuff and come out with something that can be nearly
>>> as good interactivity wise (for me).
>>> I haven't run many tests on it - my mind blanked when I tried to
>>> remember the scores of scheduler "exploits" thrown around. So if
>>> anyone would like to suggest some, or better still, run some,
>>> please do so. And be nice, this isn't my type of scheduler :P
>>> It still does have a few things that need fixing but I thought
>>> I'd get my first hack a bit of exercise.
>>> Its against 2.6.0-test3-mm1
>>>
>>
>> Say, any chance you could spray out a brief explanation of your new
>> heuristics?
>>
>
> Oh alright. BTW, this one's not for your big boxes yet! It does funny
> things with timeslices. But they will be (pending free time) made much
> more dynamic, so it should _hopefully_ context switch even less than
> the normal scheduler in a compute intensive load.
>
> OK. timeslices: they are now dynamic. Full priority tasks will get
> 100ms, minimum priority tasks 10ms (this is what needs fixing, but
> should be OK to test "interactiveness")
>
> interactivity estimator is gone: grep -i interactiv sched.c | wc -l
> gives 0.
>
> priorities are much the same, although processes are supposed to be
> able to change priority much more quickly.
>
> backboost is back. that is what (hopefully) prevents X from starving
> due to the quickly changing priorities thing.

  And lack of interactivity estimator.

-
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/