From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: scott@thomasons.org, Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] scheduler tunables with contest - prio_bonus_ratio
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 18:29:23 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200212251829.33553.conman@kolivas.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200212241626.26478.scott@thomasons.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 09:26 am, scott thomason wrote:
> On Thursday 19 December 2002 05:41 pm, Robert Love wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 18:18, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > That is too often not the case.
> >
> > I knew you would say that!
> >
> > > I can get the desktop machine working about as comfortably
> > > as 2.4.19 with:
> > >
> > > # echo 10 > max_timeslice
> > > # echo 0 > prio_bonus_ratio
> > >
> > > ie: disabling all the fancy new scheduler features :(
> > >
> > > Dropping max_timeslice fixes the enormous stalls which happen
> > > when an interactive process gets incorrectly identified as a
> > > cpu hog. (OK, that's expected)
>
> My experiences to add to the pot...I started by booting 2.5.52-mm2 and
> launching KDE3. I have a dual AMD MP2000+, 1GB RAM, with most of the
> data used below on striped/RAID0 ATA/133 drives. Taking Andrew's
> advice, I created a continuous load with:
>
> while [ 1 ]; do ( make -j4 clean; make -j4 bzImage ); done
>
> ...in a kernel tree, then sat down for a leisurely email and web
> cruising session. After about fifteen minutes, it became apparent I
> wasn't suffering any interactive slowdown. So I increased the load:
>
> while [ 1 ]; do ( make -j8 clean; make -j8 bzImage ); done
> while [ 1 ]; do ( cp dump1 dump2; rm dump2; sync ); done
>
> ...where file "dump1" is 100MB. Now we're seeing some impact :)
>
> To combat this I tried:
>
> echo 3000 > starvation_limit
> echo 4 > interactive_delta
> echo 200 max_timeslice
> echo 20 min_timeslice
>
> This works pretty well. The "spinning envelope" on the email monitor
> of gkrellm actually corresponds quite nicely with the actual feel of
> my system, so after awhile, I just sat back and observed it. Both the
> tactile response and the gkrellm obervations show this: it's common
> to experience maybe a .1--.3 second lag every 2 or 3 seconds with
> this load, with maybe the odd .5 second lag occurring once or twice a
> minute. Watching the compile job in the background scroll by, I
> noticed that there are times when it comes to a dead stop. The next
> step, I guess, needs to be a ConTest with the final settings...
>
> child_penalty: 95
>
> exit_weight: 3
>
> interactive_delta: 4
>
> max_sleep_avg: 2000
>
> max_timeslice: 300
>
> min_timeslice: 10
>
> parent_penalty: 100
>
> prio_bonus_ratio: 25
>
> starvation_limit: 3000
Scott
These don't correspond to your values listed above. Typo?
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+CV5XF6dfvkL3i1gRAn+7AJ0Qq0oEo0LE2GG1jpju4cHqH+k6/QCfV1AU
/7JI1ApZoQYwyBmFpH/50FY=
=MAZ5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-12-25 7:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-12-19 21:50 [BENCHMARK] scheduler tunables with contest - prio_bonus_ratio Con Kolivas
2002-12-19 22:46 ` Robert Love
2002-12-19 23:18 ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-19 23:41 ` Robert Love
2002-12-20 0:02 ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-20 0:15 ` Robert Love
2002-12-20 0:22 ` Con Kolivas
2002-12-20 0:29 ` Robert Love
2002-12-20 0:27 ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-20 2:42 ` Robert Love
2002-12-20 2:48 ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-24 22:26 ` scott thomason
2002-12-25 7:29 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2002-12-25 16:17 ` scott thomason
2002-12-26 15:01 ` scott thomason
2003-01-01 0:31 ` Impact of scheduler tunables on interactive response (was Re: [BENCHMARK] scheduler tunables with contest - prio_bonus_ratio) scott thomason
2003-01-01 16:05 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-01-01 17:15 ` scott thomason
2002-12-19 23:42 ` [BENCHMARK] scheduler tunables with contest - prio_bonus_ratio Con Kolivas
2002-12-19 23:53 ` Robert Love
2002-12-20 0:04 ` Con Kolivas
2002-12-20 0:16 ` Robert Love
2002-12-20 11:17 ` Marc-Christian Petersen
2002-12-20 17:54 ` Robert Love
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200212251829.33553.conman@kolivas.net \
--to=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=scott@thomasons.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.