Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751371AbWCaOoT (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:44:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751064AbWCaOoT (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:44:19 -0500 Received: from mail15.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.196]:53439 "EHLO mail15.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750754AbWCaOoS (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:44:18 -0500 From: Con Kolivas To: Al Boldi Subject: Re: [RFC] sched.c : procfs tunables Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 00:44:08 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-smp@vger.kernel.org References: <200603311723.49049.a1426z@gawab.com> In-Reply-To: <200603311723.49049.a1426z@gawab.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200604010044.09185.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1785 Lines: 34 On Saturday 01 April 2006 00:23, Al Boldi wrote: > Proper scheduling in a multi-tasking environment is critical to the success > of a desktop OS. Linux, being mainly a server OS, is currently tuned to > scheduling defaults that may be appropriate only for the server scenario. > > To enable Linux to play an effective role on the desktop, a more flexible > approach is necessary. An approach that would allow the end-User the > freedom to adjust the OS to the specific environment at hand. > > So instead of forcing a one-size fits all approach on the end-User, would > not exporting sched.c tunables to the procfs present a flexible approach to > the scheduling dilemma? > > All comments that have a vested interest in enabling Linux on the desktop > are most welcome, even if they describe other/better/smarter approaches. None of the current "tunables" have easily understandable heuristics. Even those that appear to be obvious, like timselice, are not. While exporting tunables is not a bad idea, exporting tunables that noone understands is not really helpful. Even with heavy documentation, changes are not immediately predictable, and parts of the scheduler "know" about the default tuning values and they'd be broken by modifying them. Other scheduler designs, or more infrastructure on the current one (like what Mike's working on) might make some more obvious tunables. I've already discussed what I think in that regard too on a similar email thread. Exporting them also incurs a not insignificant cost. Cheers, 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/