[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090907184640.GG18599@kernel.dk>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 20:46:40 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
On Mon, Sep 07 2009, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 09/07/2009 12:49 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>> I ran a simple test as well, since I was curious to see how it performed
>> wrt interactiveness. One of my pet peeves with the current scheduler is
>> that I have to nice compile jobs, or my X experience is just awful while
>> the compile is running.
>>
>
> I think the problem is that CFS is optimizing for the wrong thing. It's
> trying to be fair to tasks, but these are meaningless building blocks of
> jobs, which is what the user sees and measures. Your make -j128
> dominates your interactive task by two orders of magnitude. If the
> scheduler attempts to bridge this gap using heuristics, it will fail
> badly when it misdetects since it will starve the really important
> 100-thread job for a task that was misdetected as interactive.
Agree, I was actually looking into doing joint latency for X number of
tasks for the test app. I'll try and do that and see if we can detect
something from that.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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