Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Tom Spink wrote:
Alberto,
If you're feeling adventurous, grab the latest kernel and patch it
with Ingo's scheduler: CFS.
You may be pleasantly surprised.
Thanks, I might if I have to courage to patch and compile my own kernel :)
However, I'd
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2007, at 18:07:15, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> > P.S: As a second thought, a fair scheduler could behave really good
> > in other scenarios, like a server running a busy forum on apache
> > +mysql+php. Besides, this is a more real world scena
Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Jun 22, 2007, at 18:07:15, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
Ok, so what will a fair scheduler do in this case? It is my
understanding that it would give 50% CPU to each task, resulting in
the video dropping frames. Is this
On 23/06/07, Alberto Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
El Saturday 23 June 2007 18:35:18 Kyle Moffett escribió:
[snip]
> "PROCESS1 is more important than PROCESS2" is pure policy and must be
> done from userspace. We even give appropriate enforcement mechanisms
> to userspace to take such ac
Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> On Saturday 23 June 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 2007, at 18:07:15, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> > What this *actually* means is that you want the media player to have
> > higher priority than the DVD ripping program. Ergo you should run
> > "nice +20 my_dvd_b
El Saturday 23 June 2007 18:35:18 Kyle Moffett escribió:
> If you want the kernel to
> treat one job or the other as more important then you must *TELL* it
> that, end of story.
Yes, that makes sense now that it's been explained to me conveniently. As long
as a normal user is not left alone with
On Jun 23, 2007, at 03:46:43, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Jun 22, 2007, at 18:07:15, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
Ok, so what will a fair scheduler do in this case? It is my
understanding that it would give 50% CPU to each task, resulting
in the video
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:56:36 +0200
Alberto Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And yes, programs/distributions should set good defaults for you... and
> > if they don't, just complain to them :)
>
> I'm sure they'll do once a fair scheduler goes into mainline :)
Some already does... for e
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Paolo Ornati wrote:
> But the fact is, the "interactivity estimator" is too fragile, and when
> it fails it can do much damage.
>
>
> Fair scheduler instead:
> - are robust
> - provide consistent behaviour
> - provide good interactivity within the bounds
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:01:02 +0200
Alberto Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see. So you mean that in 90% of the cases the mainline scheduler behaves
> better than fair schedulers, but when its "logic" fails it behaves much worse
> (the other 10% cases)?
Yes and no... the "logic" is suppo
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 01:26:34PM +0200, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> On Saturday 23 June 2007, Tom Spink wrote:
> > Alberto,
> >
> > If you're feeling adventurous, grab the latest kernel and patch it
> > with Ingo's scheduler: CFS.
> >
> > You may be pleasantly surprised.
>
> Thanks, I might if I h
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Tom Spink wrote:
> Alberto,
>
> If you're feeling adventurous, grab the latest kernel and patch it
> with Ingo's scheduler: CFS.
>
> You may be pleasantly surprised.
Thanks, I might if I have to courage to patch and compile my own kernel :)
However, I'd also need to chan
On 23/06/07, Alberto Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:45:30PM +0200, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> > Ok, so if I understand correctly, the problem I had in my simple test
> > will be solved by distributions once a fair sch
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:45:30PM +0200, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> > Ok, so if I understand correctly, the problem I had in my simple test
> > will be solved by distributions once a fair scheduler goes into mainline?
>
> No, there is no reason to wa
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:45:30PM +0200, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> On Saturday 23 June 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > > But the bottom line is that on a desktop, tasks should receive
> > > different -unfair- amounts of CPU time to work correctly. The "fair"
> > > concept still looks wrong to me
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > But the bottom line is that on a desktop, tasks should receive
> > different -unfair- amounts of CPU time to work correctly. The "fair"
> > concept still looks wrong to me.
>
> "fair" means what it means : stop starving some tasks for no apparent
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 11:18:43AM +0200, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> On Saturday 23 June 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 10:01:02AM +0200, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> > > I see. So you mean that in 90% of the cases the mainline scheduler
> > > behaves better than fair schedulers
I think you're not considering normal users here. Believe it or not, 99% of
desktop users in the world just click on a icon to watch a video. And they DO
want watch them, not use them for monitoring purposes (whatever that means).
I acknowledge it's impossible to be inside a user's mind to decide
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 10:01:02AM +0200, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> > I see. So you mean that in 90% of the cases the mainline scheduler
> > behaves better than fair schedulers, but when its "logic" fails it
> > behaves much worse (the other 10% case
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 10:01:02AM +0200, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> On Saturday 23 June 2007, Paolo Ornati wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 00:07:15 +0200
> >
> > Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> > > My conclusion is that SD behaves as expected: it's more fair. But for a
> > >
Thanks for your thoughts.
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Paolo Ornati wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 00:07:15 +0200
>
> Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> > My conclusion is that SD behaves as expected: it's more fair. But for a
> > desktop, shouldn't an "intelligently unfair" scheduler be better?
>
> "intelligen
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2007, at 18:07:15, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> > Ok, so what will a fair scheduler do in this case? It is my
> > understanding that it would give 50% CPU to each task, resulting in
> > the video dropping frames. Is this correct?
>
> Yes, that
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 00:07:15 +0200
Alberto Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My conclusion is that SD behaves as expected: it's more fair. But for a
> desktop, shouldn't an "intelligently unfair" scheduler be better?
"intelligently unfair" is what the current scheduler is (because of
interac
On Jun 22, 2007, at 18:07:15, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
Let's say I have a HD video that uses ~70% CPU. Let's say I want to
watch it while I encode my music to vorbis (or rip a DVD). This is
the only reasonable scenario I can imagine on a normal desktop,
since most desktops have the CPU idle o
24 matches
Mail list logo
