From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965645AbXCMJc1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:32:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965656AbXCMJc0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:32:26 -0400 Received: from mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.186]:37832 "EHLO mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965645AbXCMJc0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:32:26 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: ck@vds.kolivas.org Subject: Re: [ck] Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 0/7] RSDL cpu scheduler for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:31:38 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Mike Galbraith , Linus Torvalds , linux kernel mailing list References: <200703111457.17624.kernel@kolivas.org> <20070313081805.GA22327@elte.hu> <200703132021.50712.kernel@kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: <200703132021.50712.kernel@kolivas.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703132031.39370.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 13 March 2007 20:21, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Tuesday 13 March 2007 19:18, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > [...] The situation as we speak is that you can run cpu intensive > > > tasks while watching eye-candy. With RSDL, you can't, you feel the > > > non-interactive load instantly. [...] > > > > i have to agree with Mike that this is a material regression that cannot > > be talked around. > > > > Con, we want RSDL to /improve/ interactivity. Having new scheduler > > interactivity logic that behaves /worse/ in the presence of CPU hogs, > > which CPU hogs are even reniced to +5, than the current interactivity > > code, is i think a non-starter. Could you try to fix this, please? Good > > interactivity in the presence of CPU hogs (be them default nice level or > > nice +5) is _the_ most important scheduler interactivity metric. > > Anything else is really secondary. > > Well I guess you must have missed where I asked him if he would be happy if > I changed +5 metrics to do whatever he wanted and he refused to answer me. > That would easily fit within that scheme. Any percentage of nice value he > chose. I suggest 50% of nice 0. Heck I can even increase it if he likes. > All I asked for was an answer as to whether that would satisfy his > criterion. It seem Mike has chosen to go silent so I'll guess on his part. nice on my debian etch seems to choose nice +10 without arguments contrary to a previous discussion that said 4 was the default. However 4 is a good value to use as a base of sorts. What I propose is as a proportion of nice 0: nice 4 1/2 nice 8 1/4 nice 12 1/8 nice 16 1/16 nice 20 1/32 (of course nice 20 doesn't exist) and we can do the opposite in the other direction nice -4 2 nice -8 4 nice -12 8 nice -16 16 nice -20 32 Assuming no further discussion is forthcoming I'll implement that along with Al's suggestion for staggering the latencies better with nice differences since the two are changing the same thing. -- -ck