Re: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy

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

Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:

>On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 14:35, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>Patch against 2.6.0-test4. It fixes a lot of problems here vs
>>previous versions. There aren't really any open issues for me, so
>>testers would be welcome.
>>
>>The big change is more dynamic timeslices, which allows "interactive"
>>tasks to get very small timeslices while more compute intensive loads
>>can be given bigger timeslices than usual. This works properly with
>>nice (niced processes will tend to get bigger timeslices).
>>
>>I think I have cured test-starve too.
>>
>
>I haven't still found any starvation cases, but forking time when the
>system is under heavy load has increased considerable with respect to
>vanilla or Con's O18.1int:
>
>1. On a Konsole session, run "while true; do a=2; done"
>2. Now, try forming a new Konsole session and you'll see it takes
>approximately twice the time it takes when the system is under no load.
>

Yeah, it probably penalises parents and children too much on fork, and
doesn't penalise parents of exiting cpu hogs enough. I have noticed
this too.

>
>Also, renicing X to -20 helps X interactivity, while with Con's patches,
>renicing X to -20 makes it feel worse.
>

renicing IMO is a lot more sane in my patches, although others might
disagree. In Con's patches, when you make X -20, it gets huge timeslices.
In my version, it will get lots of smaller timeslices.

Thanks again for testing.

Nick