linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 0/7] RSDL cpu scheduler for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070313141718.GE10459@waste.org>
Date:	Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:17:18 -0500
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
	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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 0/7] RSDL cpu scheduler for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:33:18AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 09:18 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > Con, we want RSDL to /improve/ interactivity. Having new scheduler 
> > interactivity logic that behaves /worse/ in the presence of CPU hogs, 
> > which CPU hogs are even reniced to +5, than the current interactivity 
> > code, is i think a non-starter. Could you try to fix this, please? Good 
> > interactivity in the presence of CPU hogs (be them default nice level or 
> > nice +5) is _the_ most important scheduler interactivity metric. 
> > Anything else is really secondary.
> 
> I just retested with the encoders at nice 0, and the x/gforce combo is
> terrible.  Funny thing though, x/gforce isn't as badly affected with a
> kernel build.  Any build is quite noticable, but even at -j8, the effect
> doen't seem to be (very brief test warning applies) as bad as with only
> the two encoders running.  That seems quite odd.

Is gforce calling sched_yield?

Can you try testing with some simpler loads, like these:

memload:
#!/usr/bin/python
a = "a" * 16 * 1024 * 1024
while 1:
    b = a[1:] + "b"
    a = b[1:] + "c"

execload:
#!/bin/sh
exec ./execload

forkload:
#!/bin/sh
./forkload&

pipeload:
#!/usr/bin/python
import os
pi, po = os.pipe()
if os.fork():
  while 1:
    os.write(po, "A" * 4096)
else:
  while 1:
    os.read(pi, 4096)

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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/