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  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]
Date:	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:24:58 +1100
From:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
To:	Jeffrey Hundstad <jeffrey.hundstad@...u.edu>
Cc:	Artur Skawina <art_k@...pl>,
	linux list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: rsdl improvements

On Thursday 22 March 2007 10:48, Jeffrey Hundstad wrote:
> Artur Skawina wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> >> Note no interactive boost idea here.
> >>
> >> Patch is for 2.6.21-rc4-mm1. I have not spent the time trying to bring
> >> other bases in sync.
> >
> > I've tried RSDLv.31+this on 2.6.20.3 as i'm not tracking -mm.
> >
> >> Further improve the deterministic nature of the RSDL cpu scheduler and
> >> make the rr_interval tunable.
> >>
> >> By only giving out priority slots to tasks at the current runqueue's
> >> prio_level or below we can make the cpu allocation not altered by
> >> accounting issues across major_rotation periods. This makes the cpu
> >> allocation and latencies more deterministic, and decreases maximum
> >> latencies substantially. This change removes the possibility that tasks
> >> can get bursts of cpu activity which can favour towards interactive
> >> tasks but also favour towards cpu bound tasks which happen to wait on
> >> other activity (such as I/O) and is a net gain.
> >
> > I'm not sure this is going in the right direction... I'm writing
> > this while compiling a kernel w/ "nice -20 make -j2" and X is almost
>
> Did you mean "nice -20"?  If so, that should have slowed X quite a bit.
> Try "nice 19" instead.
>
> nice(1):
>        Run  COMMAND  with an adjusted niceness, which affects process
> scheduling.  With no COMMAND, print the current  niceness.   Nicenesses
> range from -20 (most favorable scheduling) to 19 (least favorable).

No he's right. Something scrambled my brain and I've completely left out the 
part where I offer the old bursts as a tunable option as well, which 
unintentionally killed off SCHED_BATCH as an entity. I'll have to put that as 
an additional patch sorry as this by itself is not always a win. Hang in 
there.

-- 
-ck
-
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