Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763101AbXF0U1X (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:27:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753743AbXF0U1Q (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:27:16 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:44347 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753366AbXF0U1P (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:27:15 -0400 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: Question about fair schedulers Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:28:21 -0400 Message-ID: <4682C865.7080307@tmr.com> References: <200706230007.15622.info@gnebu.es> <200706231300.18840.info@gnebu.es> <7b9198260706230405y5c4a173dx82a18fcc14a10272@mail.gmail.com> <200706231326.34918.info@gnebu.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org Cc: Tom Spink , Linux Kernel Mailing List X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: mail.tmr.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061105 SeaMonkey/1.0.6 In-Reply-To: <200706231326.34918.info@gnebu.es> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1750 Lines: 45 Alberto Gonzalez wrote: > On Saturday 23 June 2007, Tom Spink wrote: >> Alberto, >> >> If you're feeling adventurous, grab the latest kernel and patch it >> with Ingo's scheduler: CFS. >> >> You may be pleasantly surprised. > > Thanks, I might if I have to courage to patch and compile my own kernel :) > > However, I'd also need to change all my applications to set them with the > right priority to see the good results, so I think I might just wait until it > lands in mainline. In general not the case. I generally don't diddle my priorities, there's rarely a need. > > Just to check if I understood everything correctly: > > The mainline scheduler tries to be smart and guess the priority of each task, > and while it mostly hits the nail right in the head, sometimes it hits you > right in the thumb. > > Fair schedulers, on the contrary, forget about trying to be smart and just > care about being fair, leaving the priority settings to where they belong: > applications. > > Is this more or less correct? Incomplete. The CFS scheduler seems to do better with latency, so you may get less CPU to a process but it doesn't wind up waiting a long time to get a fair share. So it "feels better" without micro tuning. Face it, if you have more jobs than CPU no scheduler is going to make you really happy. > > Alberto. > -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot - 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/