[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200909102145.53332.Martin@lichtvoll.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:45:47 +0200
From: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@...htvoll.de>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@...or.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
Am Mittwoch 09 September 2009 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
> On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 12:05 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > Thank you for mentioning min_granularity. After:
> >
> > echo 10000000 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_latency_ns
> > echo 2000000 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_min_granularity_ns
>
> You might also want to do:
>
> echo 2000000 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_wakeup_granularity_ns
>
> That affects when a newly woken task will preempt an already running
> task.
Heh that scheduler thing again... and unfortunately Col appearing to feel
hurt while I am think that Ingo is honest on his offer on collaboration...
While it makes fun playing with that numbers and indeed experiencing
subjectively a more fluid deskopt how about just a
echo "This is a f* desktop!" > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_workload
Or to say it in other words: The Linux kernel should not require me to
fine-tune three or more values to have the scheduler act in a way that
matches my workload.
I am willing to test stuff on my work thinkpad and my Amarok thinkpad in
order to help improving with that.
--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists