Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-05-01 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:55:15AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > People seem to be confusing scheduler policy with a modular framework. > First of all, I don't know that any of the schedulers can "just go in" > and replace the mainline one, because they are still under development > and have not been

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-05-01 Thread Nick Piggin
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 03:37:47PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 05:55 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > You'll also hit the same holes should you attempt to write such a > > modularity patch for mainline as opposed to porting current mainline to > > the driver API as-

Re: 3d smoothness (was: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6)

2007-04-30 Thread Kasper Sandberg
On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 22:17 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This patch makes things much worse, [...] > > yeah, the small patch i sent to you in private mail was indeed buggy, > please disregard it. It also hardlocked my box :) but it was worth a sho

Re: 3d smoothness (was: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6)

2007-04-30 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This patch makes things much worse, [...] yeah, the small patch i sent to you in private mail was indeed buggy, please disregard it. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to

3d smoothness (was: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6)

2007-04-30 Thread Kasper Sandberg
On Sunday 29 April 2007 19:39, Ingo Molnar wrote: > hi Kasper, > > i found an aspect of CFS that could cause the kind of 'stuttering' you > described in such detail. I'm wondering whether you could try the > attached -v8-rc1 patch ontop of the -v7 CFS patch - does it improve the > 'games FPS' situa

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Mark Lord
Willy Tarreau wrote: .. Contrarily to most people, I don't see them as competitors. I see SD as a first step with a low risk of regression, and CFS as an ultimate solution relying on a more solid framework. I see SD as 100% chance of regression on my main machine. But I will retest (on Monday?

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Kasper Sandberg
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 08:42 -0700, Ray Lee wrote: > On 4/29/07, Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 08:59 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > well, there are several reports of CFS being significantly better than > > > SD on a number of workloads - and i know of only tw

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Ray Lee
On 4/29/07, Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 08:59 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > well, there are several reports of CFS being significantly better than > SD on a number of workloads - and i know of only two reports where SD > was reported to be better than CFS: in Ka

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Gene Heskett
On Sunday 29 April 2007, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote: [...] >> > > CFS modifies the scheduler and nothing else, SD fiddles all over the >> > > kernel in interesting ways. Huh? Doesn't grok. >> > Hmmm I guess you confused both of them this time. CFS touches many >> > places, which is why I think the

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Gene Heskett
On Sunday 29 April 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote: >On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 08:59:01AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I don't know if Mike still has problems with SD, but there are now >> > several interesting reports of SD giving better feedback than CFS on

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 05:55 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > You'll also hit the same holes should you attempt to write such a > modularity patch for mainline as opposed to porting current mainline to > the driver API as-given. It takes a bit more work to get something that > actually works fo

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 02:13:30PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > SD is a one to one replacement of the existing scheduler guts - with a > different behaviour. > CFS is a huge step into a modular and hierarchical scheduler design, > which allows more than just implementing a clever scheduler for a

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 01:59:13PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 13:11 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole > > > CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore. > > > > Contrarily t

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Kasper Sandberg
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 14:13 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 14:00 +0200, Kasper Sandberg wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 13:11 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:30:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > Contrarily to most people, I don't see

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 14:00 +0200, Kasper Sandberg wrote: > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 13:11 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:30:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Contrarily to most people, I don't see them as competitors. I see SD as > > a first step with a low risk of

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Paolo Ciarrocchi
On 4/29/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sunday 29 April 2007 21:11, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:30:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Willy, > > > > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:16 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is som

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Kasper Sandberg
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 13:11 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:30:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Contrarily to most people, I don't see them as competitors. I see SD as > a first step with a low risk of regression, and CFS as an ultimate > solution relying on a more sol

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 13:11 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole > > CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore. > > Contrarily to most people, I don't see them as competitors. I see SD as > a first step

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 20:53 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Sunday 29 April 2007 20:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole > > CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore. > > CFS modifies the scheduler and not

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Con Kolivas
On Sunday 29 April 2007 21:11, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:30:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Willy, > > > > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:16 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for > > > everybody and with *no* regre

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 12:48 +0200, Kasper Sandberg wrote: > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 12:30 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Willy, > > > As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole > > CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore. > > CFS modifies

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:30:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Willy, > > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:16 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for everybody > > and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect. I had the feeling > > that SD

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread hui
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 08:53:36PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Sunday 29 April 2007 20:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole > > CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore. > > CFS modifies the scheduler

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Con Kolivas
On Sunday 29 April 2007 20:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole > CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore. > CFS modifies the scheduler and nothing else, SD fiddles all over the > kernel in interesting way

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Kasper Sandberg
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 12:30 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Willy, > As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole > CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore. > CFS modifies the scheduler and nothing else, SD fiddles all over the > kernel in i

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:30:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Can we please stop this useless pissing contest and sit down and get a > modular design into mainline, which allows folks to work and integrate > their "workload X perfect scheduler" and gives us the flexibility to > adjust to the n

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Thomas Gleixner
Willy, On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:16 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for everybody > and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect. I had the feeling > that SD matched that goal right now, except for Mike who has not tested > recent vers

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 19:52 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Sunday 29 April 2007 18:00, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > [...] except for Mike who has not tested recent versions. [...] > > > > > > > > actually, dont discount Mark Lord's test results either.

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Con Kolivas
On Sunday 29 April 2007 18:00, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > [...] except for Mike who has not tested recent versions. [...] > > > > > > actually, dont discount Mark Lord's test results either. And it > > > might be a good idea for Mike to re-test SD 0.46?

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:54:36AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Common code for rbtree-based priority queues can be factored out of >> cfq, cfs, and hrtimers. On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:13:17AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > In my experience, rbtrees are painfully slow. Yesterday, I spent

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread William Lee Irwin III
* William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think it'd be a good idea to merge scheduler classes before changing >> over the policy so future changes to policy have smaller code impact. >> Basically, get scheduler classes going with the mainline scheduler. On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:54:36AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 09:16:27AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for everybody > > and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect. I had the feeling > > that SD

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:16 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for everybody > and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect. I had the feeling > that SD matched that goal right now, except for Mike who has not tested > recent versions. D

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you have some ideas on how these problems might be fixed i'd surely > try fixes and stuff, or if you have some data you need me to collect > to better understand whats going on. But i suspect any somewhat > demanding 3d application will do, and

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Ingo Molnar
* William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it'd be a good idea to merge scheduler classes before changing > over the policy so future changes to policy have smaller code impact. > Basically, get scheduler classes going with the mainline scheduler. i've got a split up patch fo

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:00:28AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > [...] except for Mike who has not tested recent versions. [...] > > > > > > actually, dont discount Mark Lord's test results either. And it > > > might be a good idea for Mike t

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [...] except for Mike who has not tested recent versions. [...] > > > > actually, dont discount Mark Lord's test results either. And it > > might be a good idea for Mike to re-test SD 0.46? > > In any case, it might be a good idea because Mike e

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Kasper Sandberg
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 08:59 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't know if Mike still has problems with SD, but there are now > > several interesting reports of SD giving better feedback than CFS on > > real work. In my experience, CFS seems smoother

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 09:16:27AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for everybody > and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect. I had the feeling > that SD matched that goal right now, except for Mike who has not tested > recent versi

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 09:30:30AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for > > everybody and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect. > > > > I had the feeling that SD matched that goal right now, [...] > > curious, which are the report

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > know of any other reports then please let me know!) > > There was Caglar Onur too but he said he will redo all the tests. > [...] well, Caglar said CFSv7 works as well as CFSv6 in his latest tests and that he'll redo all the tests to re-verify hi

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 08:59:01AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't know if Mike still has problems with SD, but there are now > > several interesting reports of SD giving better feedback than CFS on > > real work. In my experience, CFS seem

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-29 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know if Mike still has problems with SD, but there are now > several interesting reports of SD giving better feedback than CFS on > real work. In my experience, CFS seems smoother on *technical* tests, > which I agree that they do not really

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-28 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay so i've tried with cfs 7 now, and the completely broken audio > behavior is fixed. great! :) This worried me alot! > Im not sure im describing properly, but say it takes 35fps for the 3d > stuff to seem perfect, the fps monitor updates once

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-28 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 07:30 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > I don't know if Mike still has problems with SD... I'm neither testing recent SD releases nor looking at the source. All the testing I did was a waste of my time and lkml bandwidth. -Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send th

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-28 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi, On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 03:18:32AM +0200, Kasper Sandberg wrote: > Okay so i've tried with cfs 7 now, and the completely broken audio > behavior is fixed. > > The only things i really notice now is that gtk apps seems to redraw > somewhat slower, and renicing X doesent seem to be able to brin

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-28 Thread Kasper Sandberg
Okay so i've tried with cfs 7 now, and the completely broken audio behavior is fixed. The only things i really notice now is that gtk apps seems to redraw somewhat slower, and renicing X doesent seem to be able to bring it on par with SD or vanilla. And smoothness just doesent match SD, it may be

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-28 Thread Lee Revell
On 4/28/07, Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: tried looking for buffer stuff in /proc/asound, couldnt find anything, im using the via82xx driver. Use fuser to see which sound device is used: $ fuser /dev/snd/* /dev/snd/controlC0: 14028 /dev/snd/pcmC0D0c: 14028m /dev/snd/pcmC0D0p:

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-28 Thread Kasper Sandberg
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 13:55 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > update for lkml readers: this is some really 'catastrophic' condition > > triggering on your box. Here ogg123 just never skips on an older 750 > > MHz box, which is 4-5 times slower than your 2

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-28 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > yeah, indeed. Would you like to do a patch for that? > > My pleasure :) thanks! I've applied your patch to my tree and it will be in -v7 which i'll release in a few minutes. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubs

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-28 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 08:53:27PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > With the patch below applied, I ran a "time -p make -s -j10 bzImage" > test. On a 4CPU (accounting HT) Intel Xeon 3.6GHz box > > 2.6.20 + cfs-v6 -> 186.45 (real) > 2.6.20 + cfs-v6 + this_patch -> 184.55

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-28 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 03:53:38PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Won't it help if you update rq->rb_leftmost above from the value > > returned by rb_first(), so that subsequent calls to first_fair will be > > sped up? > > yeah, indeed. Would you like to do a patch for that? My pleasure :) With

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-28 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 11:47:04PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > The CFS patch against v2.6.21-rc7 or against v2.6.20.7 can be downloaded > > from the usual place: > > > > http://redhat.com/~mingo/cfs-scheduler/ > > +static inline struct rb

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-28 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 11:47:04PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > The CFS patch against v2.6.21-rc7 or against v2.6.20.7 can be downloaded > from the usual place: > > http://redhat.com/~mingo/cfs-scheduler/ +static inline struct rb_node * first_fair(struct rq *rq) +{ + if (rq->rb_leftmost

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-27 Thread Art Haas
Hi. Just wanted to chime and and say that my build of 2.6.21 + CFS-v6 + PI patch by Thomas Gleixner has been running exceptionally well on my single processor PII machine (Debian unstable) and my SMP PII machine (Fedora Rawhide). On both systems no automatic 'renice'-ing happens, and I've not noti

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-27 Thread Lee Revell
On 4/27/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ogg123 never skips. Then i cranked up the load to 50 infinite loops (!). No problems whatsoever. No problems at 100 tasks either. No problems with 250 (!) nice-0 infinite loops running either: Different soundcards support different ranges and d

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-27 Thread Bill Davidsen
Con Kolivas wrote: On Friday 27 April 2007 10:39, Gene Heskett wrote: Not necessarily Con. Do you have a fresh one for 2.6.21? Since people get nervous about any rejects here is an (otherwise identical) patch for 2.6.21 http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-sd-0.46.patch

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-27 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You've really outdone yourself this time! > > > > 2.6.21 + CFS-v6, plus the futex PI fix patch posted later, just > > absolutely rocks here! > > > > I'm having a very difficult time finding any fault with it, > > and it has now displaced the stock sched

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-27 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 15:39 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > ogg123 local harddisk skips > ogg123 nfsworks > ogg123 /dev/shm works > > The skips when running from the local harddisk are definitely caused by > the I/O scheduler or some other bottleneck in the block/disk/scs

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-27 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Kasper, just to exclude the possibility that this is somehow related > > to IO scheduling, could you copy the OGG file over to /dev/shm and > > play it from there? Do you still get the bad skips? > > That's what I can observe here: > > ogg123 l

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-27 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 13:55 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > update for lkml readers: this is some really 'catastrophic' condition > > triggering on your box. Here ogg123 just never skips on an older 750 > > MHz box, which is 4-5 times slower than your 2

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-27 Thread Mark Lord
Mark Lord wrote: Ingo, You've really outdone yourself this time! 2.6.21 + CFS-v6, plus the futex PI fix patch posted later, just absolutely rocks here! I'm having a very difficult time finding any fault with it, and it has now displaced the stock scheduler as my default and personal favourite.

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-27 Thread Mark Lord
Ingo, You've really outdone yourself this time! 2.6.21 + CFS-v6, plus the futex PI fix patch posted later, just absolutely rocks here! I'm having a very difficult time finding any fault with it, and it has now displaced the stock scheduler as my default and personal favourite. The KDE (Dapper

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-27 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Compared to mainline? I still think this is a 100% keeper for > > > desktop users like me. > > > > Here its alot worse, just playing an ogg with ogg123 even without > > anything reniced (X is 0), just pressing a link in konqueror can > > make au

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-27 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 01:53:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > i'll try to figure out what is happening on your box. I asked for your > .config off-list (which you already sent me) and i'll try to reproduce > your problems. One thing i noticed: when ogg123 plays with 'esd' also > running on the

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-27 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > update for lkml readers: this is some really 'catastrophic' condition > triggering on your box. Here ogg123 just never skips on an older 750 > MHz box, which is 4-5 times slower than your 2GHz box - while i have > _fourty nice-0 infinite loops_ runnin

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-27 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Compared to mainline? I still think this is a 100% keeper for > > desktop users like me. > > Here its alot worse, just playing an ogg with ogg123 even without > anything reniced (X is 0), just pressing a link in konqueror can make > audio skip

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-26 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 06:02 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 22:09 +0200, Kasper Sandberg wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 10:41 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > > > > > Compared to mainline? I still think this is a 100% keeper for desktop > > > users > > > like me. > >

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-26 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 22:09 +0200, Kasper Sandberg wrote: > On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 10:41 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > > Compared to mainline? I still think this is a 100% keeper for desktop > > users > > like me. > > Here its alot worse, just playing an ogg with ogg123 even without > any

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-26 Thread Gene Heskett
On Thursday 26 April 2007, Con Kolivas wrote: >On Friday 27 April 2007 10:39, Gene Heskett wrote: >> Not necessarily Con. Do you have a fresh one for 2.6.21? > >Since people get nervous about any rejects here is an (otherwise identical) >patch for 2.6.21 > >http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-26 Thread Con Kolivas
On Friday 27 April 2007 10:39, Gene Heskett wrote: > Not necessarily Con. Do you have a fresh one for 2.6.21? Since people get nervous about any rejects here is an (otherwise identical) patch for 2.6.21 http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-sd-0.46.patch -- -ck - To unsubscr

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-26 Thread Gene Heskett
On Thursday 26 April 2007, Con Kolivas wrote: >On Friday 27 April 2007 00:41, Gene Heskett wrote: >> On Thursday 26 April 2007, Redeeman wrote: >> >On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> > >> > >> >> As usual, any sort of feedback, bugreport, fix and suggestion is more >> >> than

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-26 Thread Con Kolivas
On Friday 27 April 2007 00:41, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Thursday 26 April 2007, Redeeman wrote: > >On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > >> As usual, any sort of feedback, bugreport, fix and suggestion is more > >> than welcome, > > > >well, from my experiences with cfs on

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-26 Thread Gene Heskett
On Thursday 26 April 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote: >On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 10:41 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > > >> Compared to mainline? I still think this is a 100% keeper for desktop >> users like me. > >Here its alot worse, just playing an ogg with ogg123 even without >anything reniced (X is 0),

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > thanks, applied! :-) (Did you manage to test whether PI works?) > > Yup, all tests of the kernel tester scripts work as well as the glibc > tests. great! I think this fix was the last one needed to make CFS fully compatible with the vanilla sch

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-26 Thread Kasper Sandberg
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 10:41 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > > Compared to mainline? I still think this is a 100% keeper for desktop users > like me. Here its alot worse, just playing an ogg with ogg123 even without anything reniced (X is 0), just pressing a link in konqueror can make audio skip (

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-26 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 21:35 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > i got lots of -v5 feedback (thanks and please keep the reports coming!) > > > > You asked for it :) > > > > CFS breaks the PI su

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > i got lots of -v5 feedback (thanks and please keep the reports coming!) > > You asked for it :) > > CFS breaks the PI support for futexes. Fix below. thanks, applied! :-) (Did you manage t

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-26 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > i got lots of -v5 feedback (thanks and please keep the reports coming!) You asked for it :) CFS breaks the PI support for futexes. Fix below. tglx Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c ===

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-26 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 16:06 +0200, Redeeman wrote: > On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > As usual, any sort of feedback, bugreport, fix and suggestion is more > > than welcome, > > well, from my experiences with cfs on workstation/desktop, on amd64 > 2ghz, cfs doesent mea

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-26 Thread Gene Heskett
On Thursday 26 April 2007, Redeeman wrote: >On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > >> As usual, any sort of feedback, bugreport, fix and suggestion is more >> than welcome, > >well, from my experiences with cfs on workstation/desktop, on amd64 >2ghz, cfs doesent measure up to SD

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-26 Thread Redeeman
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > As usual, any sort of feedback, bugreport, fix and suggestion is more > than welcome, well, from my experiences with cfs on workstation/desktop, on amd64 2ghz, cfs doesent measure up to SD at all. audio skips easily, with or without renice

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i'm pleased to announce release -v6 of the CFS scheduler patchset. The > main goal of CFS is to implement "high quality desktop scheduling" as > well as technically possible. > > The CFS patch against v2.6.21-rc7 or against v2.6.20.7 can be > downloa

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - upstream fix: SysRq-T should show runnable tasks > > BTW. can you send this upstream? It is very annoying how it currently > works, and I've had more than one bug that required seeing runnable > tasks in order to diagnose and fix... yeah, sent i

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-25 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 11:47:04PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> - upstream fix: SysRq-T should show runnable tasks On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 05:29:27AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > BTW. can you send this upstream? It is very annoying how it currently works, > and I've had more than one bug that requ

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-25 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 05:29:27 +0200 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - upstream fix: SysRq-T should show runnable tasks > > BTW. can you send this upstream? It is very annoying how it currently works, > and I've had more than one bug that required seeing runnable tasks in order > to dia

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-25 Thread Nick Piggin
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 11:47:04PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > i'm pleased to announce release -v6 of the CFS scheduler patchset. The > main goal of CFS is to implement "high quality desktop scheduling" as > well as technically possible. > > The CFS patch against v2.6.21-rc7 or against v2.6.2

Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-25 Thread Gene Heskett
On Wednesday 25 April 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: >i'm pleased to announce release -v6 of the CFS scheduler patchset. The >main goal of CFS is to implement "high quality desktop scheduling" as >well as technically possible. > >The CFS patch against v2.6.21-rc7 or against v2.6.20.7 can be downloaded >f

[patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

2007-04-25 Thread Ingo Molnar
i'm pleased to announce release -v6 of the CFS scheduler patchset. The main goal of CFS is to implement "high quality desktop scheduling" as well as technically possible. The CFS patch against v2.6.21-rc7 or against v2.6.20.7 can be downloaded from the usual place: http://redhat.com/~ming