Re: Using O(1) scheduler with 600 processes.

[GrandMasterLee <masterlee@digitalroadkill.net>]

On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 12:22, mgross wrote:
> On Thursday 23 January 2003 10:08 pm, GrandMasterLee wrote:
> > Well, if I could get a clean patch against 2.4.20, or possibly some help
> > fixing the one  I do have, thanks to Ingo, then we'd have a straight
> > O(1) sched for 2.4.20. I tried merging the patch that Ingo gave me, and
> > everything seems OK, but I don't have any menu selection for O(1) stuff
> > in the kernel config.(0 and 100 priority bits)
> >
> > So I can't tell if it's enabled.
> 
> do a ps -aux and see if there are any process migration threads, if you do 
> then its running the O(1) scheduler.
> 
> >
> > > Your milage will vary.
> > > 
> > > Give it a try.
> > > 
> > > --mgross
> > > 
> >
> > I agree. In the interest of time, I may have to forego O(1), but maybe
> > I'll get lucky. :) *hint*hint* :)
> 
> You really should try the O(1) scheduler.  600 process is a lot, we had ~100 
> for our benchmarks so it wasn't as big of a overhead for the old scheduler.  
> (Running Itanium 2's didn't hurt either ;) 
> 
> Your running Xeon's with more processes, you are more likely to see a benefit 
> from the O(1) scheduler.
> 
> --mgross

Ok...that's good feed back. If someone could help me sort out my patch
problems, I'd be happy to integrate it. but as WLI pointed out, 2.5 has
what I need, 2.4 doesn't, and thus, more effort, seemingly, is directed
at fixing O(1) for 2.5, versus backporting to 2.4.


-- 
GrandMasterLee <masterlee@digitalroadkill.net>