RSDL v0.28 for 2.6.20

RSDL v0.28 for 2.6.20

[Con Kolivas]

Here is an update for RSDL to version 0.28

Full patch:
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20-sched-rsdl-0.28.patch

Series:
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20/

The patch to get you from 0.26 to 0.28:
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20/sched-rsdl-0.26-0.28.patch

A similar patch and directories will be made for 2.6.21-rc3 without further 
announcement

-- 
-ck

Re: RSDL v0.28 for 2.6.20

[Stephen Clark]

Con Kolivas wrote:

>Here is an update for RSDL to version 0.28
>
>Full patch:
>http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20-sched-rsdl-0.28.patch
>
>Series:
>http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20/
>
>The patch to get you from 0.26 to 0.28:
>http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20/sched-rsdl-0.26-0.28.patch
>
>A similar patch and directories will be made for 2.6.21-rc3 without further 
>announcement
>
>  
>
doesn't apply against 2.6.20.2:

patch -p1 <~/2.6.20-sched-rsdl-0.28.patch --dry-run
patching file include/linux/list.h
patching file fs/proc/array.c
patching file fs/pipe.c
patching file include/linux/sched.h
patching file include/asm-generic/bitops/sched.h
patching file include/asm-s390/bitops.h
patching file kernel/sched.c
Hunk #41 FAILED at 3531.
1 out of 62 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file kernel/sched.c.rej
patching file include/linux/init_task.h
patching file Documentation/sched-design.txt

Steve
-- 

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, 
deserve neither liberty nor safety."  (Ben Franklin)

"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty 
decreases."  (Thomas Jefferson)

RSDL v0.28 for 2.6.20 -> backport to 2.6.18.8

[Fortier,Vincent [Montreal]]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1744 bytes --]

Hi all,

> 
> Here is an update for RSDL to version 0.28
> 
> Full patch:
> http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20-sched-
> rsdl-0.28.patch
> 
> Series:
> http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20/
> 
> The patch to get you from 0.26 to 0.28:
> http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20/sched-
> rsdl-0.26-0.28.patch
> 
> A similar patch and directories will be made for 2.6.21-rc3 
> without further announcement
> 

First of all, thanx Con for this nice piece of code.

I've been trying in the last few days to backport this new scheduler to
a 2.6.18 kernel.  After a lot of efforts I have finally been able to
compile and run a RSDL patched 2.6.18.8 kernel on a x86_64 arch and
actually my test PC booted 2-3 seconds faster with it compared to a
vanilla 2.6.18.8 kernel.

This patch includes a few other patches from 2.6.19+ kernel:

PATCH 1:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.20.y.git;a=co
mmit;h=ece8a684c75df215320b4155944979e3f78c5c93

PATCH 2:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.20.y.git;a=co
mmit;h=08c183f31bdbb709f177f6d3110d5f288ea33933

PATCH 3:
The patch to get you from 0.26 to 0.28:
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20/sched-rsdl-0.26-
0.28.patch

There might also be other small pieces of code comming from a 2.6.19+
kernel.

Due to the project I'm currently working on, this will, in the next few
weeks, help me out comparing heavy loads on a Debian Sarge/Etch 32/64
platform.  Suggestions on benchmark tools would greatly be appreciated.

Duno if this will be helpfull for anybody but I tought it would be nice
to give it back to the lkml community.

- vin

[-- Attachment #2: sched-rsdl-0.26-backport-kernel-2.6.18.patch.gz --]
[-- Type: application/x-gzip, Size: 29092 bytes --]

Re: RSDL v0.28 for 2.6.20

[Willy Tarreau]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 01:09:35PM -0500, Stephen Clark wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> 
> >Here is an update for RSDL to version 0.28
> >
> >Full patch:
> >http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20-sched-rsdl-0.28.patch
> >
> >Series:
> >http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20/
> >
> >The patch to get you from 0.26 to 0.28:
> >http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20/sched-rsdl-0.26-0.28.patch
> >
> >A similar patch and directories will be made for 2.6.21-rc3 without 
> >further announcement
> >
> > 
> >
> doesn't apply against 2.6.20.2:
> 
> patch -p1 <~/2.6.20-sched-rsdl-0.28.patch --dry-run
> patching file include/linux/list.h
> patching file fs/proc/array.c
> patching file fs/pipe.c
> patching file include/linux/sched.h
> patching file include/asm-generic/bitops/sched.h
> patching file include/asm-s390/bitops.h
> patching file kernel/sched.c
> Hunk #41 FAILED at 3531.
> 1 out of 62 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file kernel/sched.c.rej
> patching file include/linux/init_task.h
> patching file Documentation/sched-design.txt

It is easier to apply 2.6.20.2 on top of 2.6.20+RSDL. The .2 patch
is a one-liner that you can easily fix by hand, and I'm not even
certain that it is still required :

--- ./kernel/sched.c.orig	2007-03-10 13:03:51 +0100
+++ ./kernel/sched.c	2007-03-10 13:08:02 +0100
@@ -3544,7 +3544,7 @@
 		next = list_entry(queue->next, struct task_struct, run_list);
 	}
 
-	if (dependent_sleeper(cpu, rq, next))
+	if (rq->nr_running == 1 && dependent_sleeper(cpu, rq, next))
 		next = rq->idle;
 switch_tasks:
 	if (next == rq->idle)

BTW, Con, I think that you should base your work on 2.6.20.[23] and not
2.6.20 next time, due to this conflict. It will get wider adoption.

Regards,
Willy

Re: [ck] Re: RSDL v0.28 for 2.6.20

[michael chang]

On 3/10/07, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> BTW, Con, I think that you should base your work on 2.6.20.[23] and not
> 2.6.20 next time, due to this conflict. It will get wider adoption.

Maybe I'm naive, but I find this hard to understand -- 2.6.20.2 didn't
exist when Con published his patch. (Con published it ~12 hours before
the release of 2.6.20.2, from what I can tell.) How can he base his
work on something that didn't yet exist? (And it applied cleanly to
2.6.20.1, the latest when he published it.)

That said, being able to easily apply it to the latest stable kernel
would probably increase adoption, yes. I will agree with that much.

-- 
~Mike
 - Just the crazy copy cat.

Re: [ck] Re: RSDL v0.28 for 2.6.20

[Willy Tarreau]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 04:56:57PM -0500, michael chang wrote:
> On 3/10/07, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> >BTW, Con, I think that you should base your work on 2.6.20.[23] and not
> >2.6.20 next time, due to this conflict. It will get wider adoption.
          ^^^^^^^^^^

> Maybe I'm naive, but I find this hard to understand -- 2.6.20.2 didn't
> exist when Con published his patch. (Con published it ~12 hours before
> the release of 2.6.20.2, from what I can tell.) How can he base his
> work on something that didn't yet exist? (And it applied cleanly to
> 2.6.20.1, the latest when he published it.)

You see the words I have underlined ? "next time". I know for sure he
published it before 2.6.20.2, but now that it is out, I suggested that
Con rebases his work on this version for new releases.

Regards,
Willy

Re: [ck] Re: RSDL v0.28 for 2.6.20

[michael chang]

On 3/10/07, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 04:56:57PM -0500, michael chang wrote:
> > On 3/10/07, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> > >BTW, Con, I think that you should base your work on 2.6.20.[23] and not
> > >2.6.20 next time, due to this conflict. It will get wider adoption.
>           ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > Maybe I'm naive, but I find this hard to understand -- 2.6.20.2 didn't
> > exist when Con published his patch. (Con published it ~12 hours before
> > the release of 2.6.20.2, from what I can tell.) How can he base his
> > work on something that didn't yet exist? (And it applied cleanly to
> > 2.6.20.1, the latest when he published it.)
>
> You see the words I have underlined ? "next time". I know for sure he
> published it before 2.6.20.2, but now that it is out, I suggested that
> Con rebases his work on this version for new releases.
>

Oh. That's my mistake, then. That makes sense. To me, it sounded like
you were implying he was supposed to base it on 2.6.20.2 in advance,
for some reason. *sigh*

-- 
~Mike
 - Just the crazy copy cat.

Re: RSDL v0.28 for 2.6.20

[Con Kolivas]

On Sunday 11 March 2007 06:11, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 01:09:35PM -0500, Stephen Clark wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > >Here is an update for RSDL to version 0.28
> > >
> > >Full patch:
> > >http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20-sched-rsdl-0.28.
> > >patch
> > >
> > >Series:
> > >http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20/
> > >
> > >The patch to get you from 0.26 to 0.28:
> > >http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20/sched-rsdl-0.26-
> > >0.28.patch
> > >
> > >A similar patch and directories will be made for 2.6.21-rc3 without
> > >further announcement
> >
> > doesn't apply against 2.6.20.2:
> >
> > patch -p1 <~/2.6.20-sched-rsdl-0.28.patch --dry-run
> > patching file include/linux/list.h
> > patching file fs/proc/array.c
> > patching file fs/pipe.c
> > patching file include/linux/sched.h
> > patching file include/asm-generic/bitops/sched.h
> > patching file include/asm-s390/bitops.h
> > patching file kernel/sched.c
> > Hunk #41 FAILED at 3531.
> > 1 out of 62 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file kernel/sched.c.rej
> > patching file include/linux/init_task.h
> > patching file Documentation/sched-design.txt
>
> It is easier to apply 2.6.20.2 on top of 2.6.20+RSDL. The .2 patch
> is a one-liner that you can easily fix by hand, and I'm not even
> certain that it is still required :
>
> --- ./kernel/sched.c.orig	2007-03-10 13:03:51 +0100
> +++ ./kernel/sched.c	2007-03-10 13:08:02 +0100
> @@ -3544,7 +3544,7 @@
>  		next = list_entry(queue->next, struct task_struct, run_list);
>  	}
>
> -	if (dependent_sleeper(cpu, rq, next))
> +	if (rq->nr_running == 1 && dependent_sleeper(cpu, rq, next))
>  		next = rq->idle;
>  switch_tasks:
>  	if (next == rq->idle)
>
> BTW, Con, I think that you should base your work on 2.6.20.[23] and not
> 2.6.20 next time, due to this conflict. It will get wider adoption.

Gotcha. This bugfix for 2.6.20.2 was controversial anyway so it probably wont 
hurt if you dont apply it.

Has anyone had any trouble with RSDL on the stable kernels (ie not -mm)?

-- 
-ck

Re: [ck] Re: RSDL v0.28 for 2.6.20

[Thibaut VARENE]

On 3/11/07, Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:

> Has anyone had any trouble with RSDL on the stable kernels (ie not -mm)?

Tested fine so far on ppc, ia64 and (mostly) parisc.

HTH

-- 
Thibaut VARENE
http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/

Re: [ck] Re: RSDL v0.28 for 2.6.20

[Thibaut VARENE]

On 3/11/07, Thibaut VARENE <T-Bone@parisc-linux.org> wrote:
> On 3/11/07, Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:
>
> > Has anyone had any trouble with RSDL on the stable kernels (ie not -mm)?
>
> Tested fine so far on ppc, ia64 and (mostly) parisc.

I meant ppc64, actually.
Gomen.

-- 
Thibaut VARENE
http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/