Re: [CFT][PATCH] new scheduler policy

[Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:

>On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:53:01AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>As per the latest trend these days, I've done some tinkering with
>>the cpu scheduler. I have gone in the opposite direction of most
>>of the recent stuff and come out with something that can be nearly
>>as good interactivity wise (for me).
>>I haven't run many tests on it - my mind blanked when I tried to
>>remember the scores of scheduler "exploits" thrown around. So if
>>anyone would like to suggest some, or better still, run some,
>>please do so. And be nice, this isn't my type of scheduler :P
>>It still does have a few things that need fixing but I thought
>>I'd get my first hack a bit of exercise.
>>Its against 2.6.0-test3-mm1
>>
>
>Say, any chance you could spray out a brief explanation of your new
>heuristics?
>

Oh alright. BTW, this one's not for your big boxes yet! It does funny
things with timeslices. But they will be (pending free time) made much
more dynamic, so it should _hopefully_ context switch even less than
the normal scheduler in a compute intensive load.

OK. timeslices: they are now dynamic. Full priority tasks will get
100ms, minimum priority tasks 10ms (this is what needs fixing, but
should be OK to test "interactiveness")

interactivity estimator is gone: grep -i interactiv sched.c | wc -l
gives 0.

priorities are much the same, although processes are supposed to be
able to change priority much more quickly.

backboost is back. that is what (hopefully) prevents X from starving
due to the quickly changing priorities thing.