From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ck@vds.kolivas.org
Subject: Re: [ck] [REPORT] 2.6.21.1 vs 2.6.21-sd046 vs 2.6.21-cfs-v6
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 21:35:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070503043541.GC19966@holomorphy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200705030651.43865.a1426z@gawab.com>
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> That's odd. The ->load_weight changes should've improved that quite
>> a bit. There may be something slightly off in how lag is computed,
>> or maybe the O(n) lag issue Ying Tang spotted is biting you.
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 06:51:43AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Is it not biting you too?
I'm a kernel programmer. I'm not an objective tester.
It also happens to be the case that I personally have never encountered
a performance problem with any of the schedulers, mainline included, on
any system I use interactively. So my "user experience" is not valuable.
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Also, I should say that the nice number affairs don't imply fairness
>> per se. The way that works is that when tasks have "weights" (like
>> nice levels in UNIX) the definition of fairness changes so that each
>> task gets shares of CPU bandwidth proportional to its weight instead
>> of one share for one task.
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 06:51:43AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Ok, but you can easily expose scheduler unfairness by using nice levels as
> relative magnifiers; provided nice levels are implemented correctly.
This doesn't really fit in with anything I'm aware of.
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> The other thing to do is try a different number of tasks with a
>> different mix of nice levels. The weight w_i for a given nice
>> level n_i should be the same even in a different mix of tasks
>> and nice levels if the nice levels are the same.
>> If this sounds too far out, there's nothing to worry about. You can
>> just run the different numbers of tasks with different mixes of nice
>> levels and post the %cpu numbers. Or if that's still a bit far out
>> for you, a test that does all this is eventually going to get written.
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 06:51:43AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> chew.c does exactly that, just make sure sched_granularity_ms >= 5,000,000.
Please post the source of chew.c
-- wli
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-03 4:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-02 23:11 [ck] [REPORT] 2.6.21.1 vs 2.6.21-sd046 vs 2.6.21-cfs-v6 Al Boldi
2007-05-03 0:49 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-03 3:51 ` Al Boldi
2007-05-03 4:35 ` William Lee Irwin III [this message]
2007-05-03 6:42 ` Al Boldi
2007-05-03 7:23 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-03 8:01 ` Al Boldi
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-04-30 8:05 Michael Gerdau
2007-05-02 12:11 ` [ck] " Con Kolivas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070503043541.GC19966@holomorphy.com \
--to=wli@holomorphy.com \
--cc=a1426z@gawab.com \
--cc=ck@vds.kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox