New scheduler in 2.4. series?

New scheduler in 2.4. series?

[Andreas Tscharner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 499 bytes --]

Hello World,
Hello Marcelo,

Is there any chance, that the new scheduler will be in the 2.4 series soon?

Regards
	Andreas
-- 
Andreas Tscharner                                     starfire@dplanet.ch
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build 
bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce
bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." -- Rich Cook 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: New scheduler in 2.4. series?

[Brandon Low]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 915 bytes --]

Seeing the new scheduler in 2.4 would be nice!  However, soon wouldn't be nice, because there are a lot of 3rd party kernel 
modules that try to make calls against the old scheduler that don't seem to work.  My personal case in point is Bestcrypt 
( www.jetico.sci.fi ).  Just my thoughts on the matter.

--Brandon

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Previous Message(s)-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Hello World,
> Hello Marcelo,
> 
> Is there any chance, that the new scheduler will be in the 2.4 series soon?
> 
> Regards
> 	Andreas
> -- 
> Andreas Tscharner                                     starfire@dplanet.ch
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build 
> bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce
> bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." -- Rich Cook 



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: New scheduler in 2.4. series?

[Dieter Nützel]

On Monday, 4. February 2002 22:19, Andreas Tscharner wrote:
> Hello World,
> Hello Marcelo,
>
> Is there any chance, that the new scheduler will be in the 2.4 series soon?

I think "we" should start with the "remaining" -aa patches for 
2.4.19-pre1/-pre2, finally...

Yes, I know that I repeate my point, but it is time.

Thanks,
	Dieter
-- 
Dieter Nützel
Graduate Student, Computer Science

University of Hamburg
Department of Computer Science
@home: Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de

Re: New scheduler in 2.4. series?

[Kristian]

Brandon Low <lostlogic@lostlogicx.com> wrote:
> Seeing the new scheduler in 2.4 would be nice!  However, soon wouldn't be nice, because there are a lot of 3rd party kernel 
> modules that try to make calls against the old scheduler that don't seem to work.  My personal case in point is Bestcrypt 
> ( www.jetico.sci.fi ).  Just my thoughts on the matter.

If you're speaking of Ingo's O1-scheduler I won't vote for inclusion now. I still have some trouble with high priority nice levels (renice -20). For some seconds the system gets totally unresponsive for user requests while switching between those processes. The last one I've tried was J2.

*Kristian

  :... [snd.science] ...:
 ::
 :: http://www.korseby.net
 :: http://gsmp.sf.net
  :.........................:: ~/$ kristian@korseby.net :

Re: New scheduler in 2.4. series?

[Kristian]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> if you are using nice -20 tasks then they might take CPU time away from
> lower priority tasks. This is why bigger negative nice levels should only
> be used sparingly. (and this is why it can only be done as root.)

Of course. But with the good old scheduler I've never had any problems. The system was very slow but continuously responsive. (low frequency timeslices between process rotations) With your -J2 patch it's getting really unusable. Maybe I should give -K2 a try.

*Kristian

  :... [snd.science] ...:
 ::
 :: http://www.korseby.net
 :: http://gsmp.sf.net
  :.........................:: ~/$ kristian@korseby.net :

Re: New scheduler in 2.4. series?

[Kristian]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> true, the old scheduler did not do much with the nice level. In the new
> scheduler there is some real difference between nice levels - and this is
> a feature. I'd suggest for you to try something like nice -5. What kind of
> application are you renicing?

Just multiple 'nice -n -20 tar -cvjf` in a row for "high priority backup when my DTLA drives makes wierd noises again". I'm just compiling -K2. (BTW: -J2 behaves really bad while moving windows during a kernel compilation.)

*Kristian

  :... [snd.science] ...:
 ::
 :: http://www.korseby.net
 :: http://gsmp.sf.net
  :.........................:: ~/$ kristian@korseby.net :

Re: New scheduler in 2.4. series?

[Ingo Molnar]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Kristian wrote:

> [...] I still have some trouble with high priority nice levels (renice
> -20). For some seconds the system gets totally unresponsive for user
> requests while switching between those processes. [...]

if you are using nice -20 tasks then they might take CPU time away from
lower priority tasks. This is why bigger negative nice levels should only
be used sparingly. (and this is why it can only be done as root.)

> The last one I've tried was J2.

that's a pretty old patch, the current one is -K2.

	Ingo

Re: New scheduler in 2.4. series?

[Ingo Molnar]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Kristian wrote:

> Of course. But with the good old scheduler I've never had any
> problems. The system was very slow but continuously responsive. [...]

true, the old scheduler did not do much with the nice level. In the new
scheduler there is some real difference between nice levels - and this is
a feature. I'd suggest for you to try something like nice -5. What kind of
application are you renicing?

	Ingo

Re: New scheduler in 2.4. series?

[Kristian]

Hello.

-K2 behaves much better as -J2 did. The system gets continuously responsive again. But with nicelevel -5 at the beginning of each 'tar` the systems stalls for 2 or 3 seconds.

*Kristian

  :... [snd.science] ...:
 ::
 :: http://www.korseby.net
 :: http://gsmp.sf.net
  :.........................:: ~/$ kristian@korseby.net :

Re: New scheduler in 2.4. series?

[Ingo Molnar]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Kristian wrote:

> -K2 behaves much better as -J2 did. The system gets continuously
> responsive again. But with nicelevel -5 at the beginning of each 'tar`
> the systems stalls for 2 or 3 seconds.

yes, it takes 2-3 seconds for the system to notice that the 'tar' process
started from your interactive shell is in fact a 'CPU hog'. The system was
honoring root's request for CPU time.

this should not happen if you start it at nice -2, which should still give
'tar' enough of an advantage.

	Ingo