RE: Re: sched_yield proposals/rationale

2007-04-17 Thread Buytaert_Steven
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-kernel- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Davidsen > Sent: dinsdag 17 april 2007 21:38 > To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Cc: Buytaert, Steven; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Sub

Re: sched_yield proposals/rationale

2007-04-17 Thread Bill Davidsen
Mark Lord wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Bill Davidsen And having gotten same, are you going to code up what appears to be a solution, based on this feedback? The feedback was helpful in verifying whether there are any arguments against my approach. The real proof is in the pudding.

Re: sched_yield proposals/rationale

2007-04-13 Thread Mark Lord
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Bill Davidsen And having gotten same, are you going to code up what appears to be a solution, based on this feedback? The feedback was helpful in verifying whether there are any arguments against my approach. The real proof is in the pudding. I'm running a kern

RE: sched_yield proposals/rationale

2007-04-12 Thread Buytaert_Steven
> From: Bill Davidsen > > And having gotten same, are you going to code up what appears to be a > solution, based on this feedback? The feedback was helpful in verifying whether there are any arguments against my approach. The real proof is in the pudding. I'm running a kernel with these change

Re: sched_yield proposals/rationale

2007-04-12 Thread Bill Davidsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- Besides - but I guess you're aware of it - any randomized algorithms tend to drive benchmarkers and performance analysts crazy because their performance cannot be repeated. So it's usually better to avoid them unless there is really no altern

Re: sched_yield proposals/rationale

2007-04-12 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 11:27:22PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > This one should be pretty rare (actually I think it is dead code in > practice, due to the way the page allocator works). > Avoiding sched_yield is a really good idea outside realtime scheduling. > Since we have gone this far with the

Re: sched_yield proposals/rationale

2007-04-12 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 03:31:31PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > The only way I could think of to make sched_yield work the way they > expect would be to define some way of gang scheduling and give > sched_yield semantics that it preferably yields to other members > of the gang. > But it would be sti

RE: sched_yield proposals/rationale

2007-04-12 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 10:15 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > -Original Message- > > > Agreed, but $ find . -name "*.[ch]" | xargs grep -E "yield[ ]*\(" | wc > > over > > > the 2.6.16 kernel yields 105 hits, note including comments... An > > interesting spot is e.g. fs/buffer.c free_more_

RE: sched_yield proposals/rationale

2007-04-12 Thread Buytaert_Steven
> -Original Message- > > Agreed, but $ find . -name "*.[ch]" | xargs grep -E "yield[ ]*\(" | wc > over > > the 2.6.16 kernel yields 105 hits, note including comments... An > interesting spot is e.g. fs/buffer.c free_more_memory() > > A lot of those are probably broken in some way agreed.

Re: sched_yield proposals/rationale

2007-04-12 Thread Andi Kleen
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:05:25AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Andi Kleen > > [ ... about use of sched_yield ...] > > On the other hand when they fix their code to not rely on sched_yield > > but use [...] > > Agreed, but $ find . -name "*.[ch]" | xargs

Re: sched_yield proposals/rationale

2007-04-12 Thread Nick Piggin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Andi Kleen [ ... about use of sched_yield ...] On the other hand when they fix their code to not rely on sched_yield but use [...] Agreed, but $ find . -name "*.[ch]" | xargs grep -E "yield[ ]*\(" | wc over the 2.6.16 kernel yields 105

RE: sched_yield proposals/rationale

2007-04-12 Thread Buytaert_Steven
> -Original Message- > From: Andi Kleen > [ ... about use of sched_yield ...] > On the other hand when they fix their code to not rely on sched_yield > but use [...] Agreed, but $ find . -name "*.[ch]" | xargs grep -E "yield[ ]*\(" | wc over the 2.6.16 kernel yields 105 hits, note includin

Re: sched_yield proposals/rationale

2007-04-12 Thread Andi Kleen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Since the new 2.6.x O(1) scheduler I'm having latency problems. Probably due > to excessive use of sched_yield in code in components I don't have control > over. This 'problem'/behavioral change has been reported also by other > applications (e.g. OpenLDAP, Gnome netmee

Re: sched_yield proposals/rationale

2007-04-12 Thread Sven-Thorsten Dietrich
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 04:31 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Since the new 2.6.x O(1) scheduler I'm having latency problems. 1. Have you elevated the process priority? 2. Have you tried running SCHED_FIFO, or SCHED_RR? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" i