From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261249AbTEYBMo (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 May 2003 21:12:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261252AbTEYBMo (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 May 2003 21:12:44 -0400 Received: from c17870.thoms1.vic.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.248.224]:5002 "EHLO mail.kolivas.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261249AbTEYBMn convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 May 2003 21:12:43 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Christian Klose , William Lee Irwin III , Marc-Christian Petersen Subject: Re: I/O problems in 2.4.19/2.4.20/2.4.21-rc3 Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 11:27:20 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <200305231405.54599.christian.klose@freenet.de> <20030524142809.GZ8978@holomorphy.com> <200305250242.58269.christian.klose@freenet.de> In-Reply-To: <200305250242.58269.christian.klose@freenet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Description: clearsigned data Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200305251127.40516.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 25 May 2003 10:43, Christian Klose wrote: > On Saturday 24 May 2003 16:28, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > Hi wli, > > > > --- old/kernel/sched.c 2003-05-24 14:45:57.000000000 +0200 > > > +++ 2.5-mcp/kernel/sched.c 2003-05-24 16:18:42.000000000 +0200 > > > @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ > > > * they expire. > > > */ > > > #define MIN_TIMESLICE ( 10 * HZ / 1000) > > > -#define MAX_TIMESLICE (200 * HZ / 1000) > > > +#define MAX_TIMESLICE ( 10 * HZ / 1000) > > > #define CHILD_PENALTY 50 > > > #define PARENT_PENALTY 100 > > > #define EXIT_WEIGHT 3 > > > > This looks highly suspicious as it essentially removes dynamic timeslice > > sizing. If this fixes something, then dynamic timeslice heuristics are > > going wrong somewhere that should be properly described and handled, not > > this kind of shenanigan. > > I somewhat agree with you but this "properly described" are all the bug > reports on lkml containing "bad interactivity in 2.5, cpu starving in 2.5" > and such... > > This isn't a shenanigan, at least not for the interactivity for a desktop. > This is a workaround for users who are complaining about bad interactivity > in 2.5! > > ciao, Marc Even though you're not Marc I do agree with you. The problem is well described as either poor interactivity (the window wiggle test) or starvation in the presence of certain scheduler hogs (for whatever reason) since the interactivity patch from mingo. Dropping the max timeslice is a bandaid but destroys priority based timeslice scheduling. Dropping the min timeslice will bring this back, but at some point the timeslice will be so low that low priority cpu intensive tasks will spend most of their time cache trashing. A reasonable compromise for the desktop would be min 5 max 25 but some granularity will be lost in the different sizes of timeslices at different priorities. is there any point having longer timeslices than this? Con -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+0Bv6F6dfvkL3i1gRAhpfAKCG3fjkK02lYbAs1p3978rSL/PYAQCcCeK7 gHqR6bgrITE3CSjKCqntw+g= =rq1o -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----