* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I promised to perform some tests on your code. I'm short in time right
> now, but I observed behaviours that should be commented on.
thanks for the feedback!
> 3) CFS-v4
>
> Feels even better, mouse movements are very smooth even under high
> load. I noticed that X gets reniced to -19 with this scheduler. I've
> not looked at the code yet but this looked suspicious to me. I've
> reniced it to 0 and it did not change any behaviour. Still very
> good. The 64 ocbench share equal CPU time and show exact same
> progress after 2000 iterations. The CPU load is more smoothly spread
> according to vmstat, and there's no idle (see below). BUT I now
> think it was wrong to let new processes start with no timeslice at
> all, because it can take tens of seconds to start a new process when
> only 64 ocbench are there. [...]
ok, i'll modify that portion and add back the 50%/50% parent/child CPU
time sharing approach again. (which CFS had in -v1) That should not
change the rest of your test and should improve the task startup
characteristics.
Ingo
-
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/
