From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751276AbXDUPq5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:46:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751328AbXDUPq4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:46:56 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:35967 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751276AbXDUPqz (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:46:55 -0400 Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:46:14 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Willy Tarreau Cc: Con Kolivas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin , Mike Galbraith , Arjan van de Ven , Peter Williams , Thomas Gleixner , caglar@pardus.org.tr, Gene Heskett Subject: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44 Message-ID: <20070421154614.GA26169@elte.hu> References: <20070420140457.GA14017@elte.hu> <20070421121235.GA2044@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070421121235.GA2044@1wt.eu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Willy Tarreau wrote: > I promised to perform some tests on your code. I'm short in time right > now, but I observed behaviours that should be commented on. thanks for the feedback! > 3) CFS-v4 > > Feels even better, mouse movements are very smooth even under high > load. I noticed that X gets reniced to -19 with this scheduler. I've > not looked at the code yet but this looked suspicious to me. I've > reniced it to 0 and it did not change any behaviour. Still very > good. The 64 ocbench share equal CPU time and show exact same > progress after 2000 iterations. The CPU load is more smoothly spread > according to vmstat, and there's no idle (see below). BUT I now > think it was wrong to let new processes start with no timeslice at > all, because it can take tens of seconds to start a new process when > only 64 ocbench are there. [...] ok, i'll modify that portion and add back the 50%/50% parent/child CPU time sharing approach again. (which CFS had in -v1) That should not change the rest of your test and should improve the task startup characteristics. Ingo