Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:31:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:31:19 -0500 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([208.129.208.51]:14098 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:31:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:36:08 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: Mikael Pettersson cc: Linus Torvalds , Jens Axboe , lkml , Subject: Re: 2.5.2-pre performance degradation on an old 486 In-Reply-To: <200201071801.TAA11871@harpo.it.uu.se> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 08:43:04 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvalds wrote: > >Hey, that would do it. It looks like the idle task ends up being a > >_normal_ process (just nice'd down), so it will get real CPU time instead > >of only getting scheduled when nothing else is runnable. > > > >Davide, I think the bounce-buffer is a red herring, it's simply that we're > >wasting time in idle.. > > This does seem to be the case. As a quick hack I added > > if (p == &init_task) return -50; > > at the start of kernel/sched.c:goodness() [to approximate the old > scheduler's behaviour], and this immediately restored performance > on my 486 to the old scheduler's levels. I'll post a patch to Linus in 20 minutes otherwise Linus simply sched.c::init_idle() current->dyn_prio = -100; - Davide - 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/