Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:22:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:22:12 -0500 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([208.129.208.51]:55301 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:21:57 -0500 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:27:44 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: Ed Tomlinson cc: Ingo Molnar , lkml , Dave Jones Subject: Re: [patch] O(1) scheduler-H6/H7 and nice +19 In-Reply-To: <20020115031905.01B0624AC1@oscar.casa.dyndns.org> 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, 14 Jan 2002, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > On January 14, 2002 09:33 pm, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > try to replace : > > > > PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE() and RT_PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE() with : > > > > #define NICE_TO_TIMESLICE(n) (MIN_TIMESLICE + ((MAX_TIMESLICE - \ > > MIN_TIMESLICE) * ((n) + 20)) / 39) > > > > > > NICE_TO_TIMESLICE(p->__nice) > > Not sure about this change. gkrellm shows the compile getting about 40% > cpu. Best result here seems to be with a larger range of timeslices. ie > 1-15 ((10*HZ)/1000...) instead lets the compile get 80% of the cpu. wonder > if this might be the way to go? What's the MIN/MAX_TIMESLICE range that you used to get 80% of cpu ? - 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/