Re: [CFT][PATCH] new scheduler policy

[Mike Galbraith]

At 11:53 AM 8/19/2003 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> 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

Ok, I took it out for a quick spin...

Test-starve.c starvation is back (curable via other means), but irman2 is 
utterly harmless.  Responsiveness under load is very nice until I get to 
the "very hefty" end of the spectrum (expected).  Throughput is down a bit 
at make -j30, and there are many cc1's running at very high priority once 
swap becomes moderately busy.  OTOH, concurrency for the make -jN in 
general appears to be up a bit.  X is pretty choppy when moving windows 
around, but that _appears_ to be the newer/tamer backboost bleeding a 
kdeinit thread a bit too dry.  (I think it'll be easy to correct, will let 
you know if what I have in mind to test that theory works out).  Ending on 
a decidedly positive note, I can no longer reproduce priority inversion 
troubles with xmms's gl thread, nor with blender.

(/me wonders what the reports from wine/game folks will be like)

        -Mike



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/