From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753732AbXCQEYI (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:24:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753735AbXCQEYI (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:24:08 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([216.148.227.151]:63105 "EHLO rwcrmhc11.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753732AbXCQEYG (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:24:06 -0400 Subject: Re: RSDL v0.31 From: Nicholas Miell To: Mike Galbraith Cc: Con Kolivas , ck@vds.kolivas.org, Ingo Molnar , Al Boldi , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1174084207.7009.9.camel@Homer.simpson.net> References: <200703042335.26785.a1426z@gawab.com> <200703170040.48316.kernel@kolivas.org> <1174059299.7886.25.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <200703170813.32594.kernel@kolivas.org> <1174084207.7009.9.camel@Homer.simpson.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:24:03 -0700 Message-Id: <1174105443.3144.4.camel@entropy> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 (2.8.3-1.0.njm.1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 23:30 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 08:13 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Saturday 17 March 2007 02:34, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 00:40 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > Here are full patches for rsdl 0.31 for various base kernels. A full > > > > announce with a fresh -mm series will follow... > > > > > > > > http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20.3-rsdl-0.31.patch > > > > http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-rc3-sched-rsdl-0. > > > >31.patch > > > > http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-rc3-mm2-rsdl-0.31 > > > >.patch > > > > > > It still has trouble with the x/gforce vs two niced encoders scenario. > > > The previously reported choppiness is still present. > > > > > > I suspect that x/gforce landing in the expired array is the trouble, and > > > that this will never be smooth without some kind of exemption. I added > > > some targeted unfairness to .30, and it didn't help much at all. > > > > > > Priorities going all the way to 1 were a surprise. > > > > It wasn't going to change that case without renicing X. > > Con. You are trying to wedge a fair scheduler into an environment where > totally fair simply can not possibly function. > > If this is your final answer to the problem space, I am done testing, > and as far as _I_ am concerned, your scheduler is an utter failure. > Sorry, I haven't really been following this thread and now I'm confused. You're saying that it's somehow the scheduler's fault that X isn't running with a high enough priority? -- Nicholas Miell