From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750929AbWDDXRf (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Apr 2006 19:17:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750919AbWDDXRf (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Apr 2006 19:17:35 -0400 Received: from omta01sl.mx.bigpond.com ([144.140.92.153]:20324 "EHLO omta01sl.mx.bigpond.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750909AbWDDXRe (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Apr 2006 19:17:34 -0400 Message-ID: <4432FE8C.7010900@bigpond.net.au> Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:17:32 +1000 From: Peter Williams User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060313) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Boldi CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.3.1 for 2.6.16-rc5 References: <200604031459.51542.a1426z@gawab.com> <4431A9E7.40406@bigpond.net.au> <200604041627.25359.a1426z@gawab.com> In-Reply-To: <200604041627.25359.a1426z@gawab.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1256; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH PLAIN at omta01sl.mx.bigpond.com from [147.10.133.38] using ID pwil3058@bigpond.net.au at Tue, 4 Apr 2006 23:17:32 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Al Boldi wrote: > Peter Williams wrote: >> Al Boldi wrote: >>>>>> Control parameters for the scheduler can be read/set via files in: >>>>>> >>>>>> /sys/cpusched// >>> The default values for spa make it really easy to lock up the system. >> Which one of the SPA schedulers and under what conditions? I've been >> mucking around with these and may have broken something. If so I'd like >> to fix it. > > spa_no_frills, with a malloc-hog less than timeslice. Setting > promotion_floor to max unlocks the console. OK, you could also try increasing the promotion interval. It should be noted that spa_no_frills isn't really expected to behave very well as it's a pure round robin scheduler. It's intended purpose is as a basis for more sophisticated schedulers. I've been thinking about removing it as a bootable scheduler and only making its children available but I find it useful to compare benchmark and other test results from it with that from the other schedulers to get an idea of the extra costs involved. Similarly, zaphod is really just a vehicle for trying different ideas and the spa_ws, spa_svr and spa_ebs are the ones intended for use on real systems. Of these, spa_svr isn't very good for interactive systems as it is designed to maximize throughput on a server (it actually beats spa_no_frills by about 1% on kernbench) which isn't always compatible with good interactive response. Thanks, Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce