Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 0/7] RSDL cpu scheduler for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2

[Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>]

On Tuesday 13 March 2007 00:48, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:23:06PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > > We are getting good interactive response with a fair scheduler yet
> > > > > you seem intent on overloading it to find fault with it.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not trying to find fault, I'm TESTING AND REPORTING.  Was.
> > >
> > > Con, could you please take Mike's report of this regression seriously
> > > and address it? Thanks,
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > Mike the cpu is being proportioned out perfectly according to fairness as
> > I mentioned in the prior email, yet X is getting the lower latency
> > scheduling. I'm not sure within the bounds of fairness what more would
> > you have happen to your liking with this test case?
>
> Con,
>
> 	I think what we're discovering is that a "fair scheduler" is
> not going to cut it.  After all, running X and ripping CD's and MP3
> encoding them is not exactly an esoteric use case.  And like it or
> not, "nice" defaults to 4.
>
> 	I suspect Mike is right; the only way to deal with this
> regression is some scheduler hints from the desktop subsystem (i.e., X
> and friends).  Yes, X is broken, it's horrible, yadda, yadda, yadda.
> It's also what everyone is using, and it's a fact of life.  Just like
> we occasionally have had to work around ISA braindamage, and x86
> architecture braindamage, and ACPI braindamage all inflicted on us by
> Intel.  This is just life, and sometimes the clean, elegant solution
> is not enough.

Instead of assuming it's bad, have you tried RSDL for yourself? Mike is using 
2 lame threads for his test case.

-- 
-ck