Re: Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series (Attn: Nick Piggin and others)

[Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>]

Peter Williams wrote:
> William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 07:21:43PM -0700, spaminos-ker@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> I am not very familiar with all the parameters, so I just kept the 
>>> defaults
>>> Anything else I could try?
>>> Nicolas
>>
>>
>>
>> No. It appeared that the SPA bits had sufficient fairness in them to
>> pass this test but apparently not quite enough.
>>
> 
> The interactive bonus may interfere with fairness (the throughput bonus 
> should actually help it for tasks with equal nice) so you could try 
> setting max_ia_bonus to zero (and possibly increasing max_tpt_bonus). 
> With "eb" mode this should still give good interactive response but 
> expect interactive response to suffer a little in "pb" mode however 
> renicing the X server to a negative value should help.

I should also have mentioned that fiddling with the promotion interval 
may help.

Peter
-- 
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@bigpond.net.au

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
  -- Ambrose Bierce