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

[Peter Williams]

Peter Williams wrote:
> William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 07:21:43PM -0700, spaminos-ker@xxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

-
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/