public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: george anzinger <george@mvista.com>
To: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kpreempt-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, mingo@elte.hu,
	torvalds@transmeta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Preemptive Kernel for Ingo's O(1) scheduler
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:18:24 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3C3F56A0.E1240EE6@mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1010783095.819.61.camel@phantasy>

Robert Love wrote:
> 
> A version of preempt-kernel is now available for Ingo's O(1) scheduler.

Great!  Well done.
> 
> For 2.5.2-pre11:
>         ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml/preempt-kernel/v2.5/preempt-kernel-rml-2.5.2-pre11-1.patch
> For 2.4.18-pre3 + sched-O1-H6:
>         ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml/preempt-kernel/v2.4/ingo-O1-sched/preempt-kernel-rml-2.4.18-pre3-ingo-1.patch
> 
> Because of changes in load_balance, I suggest not using preempt-kernel
> and an additional sched update on 2.5.  I'll update as the patches are
> merged into 2.5.
> 
> Making the kernel fully preemptible should be synergistic with Ingo's
> scheduler with its faster task dispatch time and better RT support.
> 
> Getting the two to play together was not hard, albeit a bit of a pain.
> The actually scheduling support is less, due to the simplified schedule
> and schedule_tail, although there is added code for making the per-CPU
> runqueues preempt-safe.
> 
> Benchmarks:
> 
> 2.5.2-pre11 dbench 16:          24.5364 MB/s
> 2.5.2-pre11-preempt dbench 16:  27.5192 MB/s
> 
> 2.5.2-pre11 latencytest:
> worst-case latency is 18.7ms with 96% scheduling latency on-time
> 2.5.2-pre11-preempt latencytest:
> 6ms (<1.5ms in all but disk write) with 99.9% scheduling latency on-time
> 
> 2.5.2-pre11-preempt avg latency is 1.1ms (for an arbitray work-load I
> tested with).  The obstacle for sub-ms average latency is still the
> long-held spinlocks that can be 100ms+.
> 
> Full ChangeLog:
> 
> - make preempt-kernel and Ingo's O(1) scheduler play nicely
> 
> - (2.5 only) more include additions
> 
> - various cleanups and such
> 
> Comments, patches, etc. are appreciated.  While it is running stable
> here in both SMP and UP on both 2.4 and 2.5, more testing could reveal
> problems.  Also, some optimization could be done at this point to
> hopefully reduce overhead.  Enjoy,
> 
>         Robert Love

-- 
George           george@mvista.com
High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Real time sched: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rtsched/

      reply	other threads:[~2002-01-11 21:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-01-11 21:04 [PATCH] Preemptive Kernel for Ingo's O(1) scheduler Robert Love
2002-01-11 21:18 ` george anzinger [this message]

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=3C3F56A0.E1240EE6@mvista.com \
    --to=george@mvista.com \
    --cc=kpreempt-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=rml@tech9.net \
    --cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
    /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