[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070313105012.GA5608@gnuppy.monkey.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 03:50:13 -0700
From: Bill Huey (hui) <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Bill Huey (hui)" <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 0/7] RSDL cpu scheduler for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 08:41:05PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 March 2007 20:29, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > So the question is: if all tasks are on the same nice level, how does,
> > in Mike's test scenario, RSDL behave relative to the current
> > interactivity code?
...
> The only way to get the same behaviour on RSDL without hacking an
> interactivity estimator, priority boost cpu misproportionator onto it is to
> either -nice X or +nice lame.
Hello Ingo,
After talking to Con over IRC (and if I can summarize it), he's wondering if
properly nicing those tasks, as previously mention in user emails, would solve
this potential user reported regression or is something additional needed. It
seems like folks are happy with the results once the nice tweeking is done.
This is a huge behavior change after all to scheduler (just thinking out loud).
bill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists