On Tuesday 13 March 2007 07:11, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 05:49 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Tuesday 13 March 2007 01:34, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 22:23 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > Mike the cpu is being proportioned out perfectly according to > > > > fairness as I mentioned in the prior email, yet X is getting the > > > > lower latency scheduling. I'm not sure within the bounds of fairness > > > > what more would you have happen to your liking with this test case? > > > > > > It has been said that "perfection is the enemy of good". The two > > > interactive tasks receiving 40% cpu while two niced background jobs > > > receive 60% may well be perfect, but it's damn sure not good. > > > > Again I think your test is not a valid testcase. Why use two threads for > > your encoding with one cpu? Is that what other dedicated desktop OSs > > would do? > > The testcase is perfectly valid. My buddies box has two full cores, so > we used two encoders such that whatever bandwidth is not being actively > consumed by more important things gets translated into mp3 encoding. > > How would you go about ensuring that there won't be any cycles wasted? > > _My_ box has 1 core that if fully utilized translates to 1.2 cores.. or > whatever, depending on the phase of the moon. But no matter, logical vs > physical cpu argument is pure hand-waving. What really matters here is > the bottom line: your fair scheduler ignores the very real requirements > of interactivity.
Definitely not. It does not give unfair cpu towards interactive tasks. That's a very different argument. > > And let's not lose sight of things with this one testcase. > > > > RSDL fixes > > - every starvation case > > - all fairness isssues > > - is better 95% of the time on the desktop > > I don't know where you got that 95% number from. For the most part, the > existing scheduler does well. If it sucked 95% of the time, it would > have been shredded a long time ago. Check the number of feedback reports. I don't feel petty enough to count them personally to give you an accuracte percentage. > > If we fix 95% of the desktop and worsen 5% is that bad given how much > > else we've gained in the process? > > Killing the known corner case starvation scenarios is wonderful, but > let's not just pretend that interactive tasks don't have any special > requirements. Now you're really making a stretch of things. Where on earth did I say that interactive tasks don't have special requirements? It's a fundamental feature of this scheduler that I go to great pains to get them as low latency as possible and their fair share of cpu despite having a completely fair cpu distribution. > -Mike -- -ck - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
