On Monday 03 December 2007 20:57, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > as far as desktop apps such as firefox goes, the exact opposite is > > > true. We had two choices basically: either a "more agressive" yield > > > than before or a "less agressive" yield. Desktop apps were reported > > > to hurt from a "more agressive" yield (firefox for example gets some > > > pretty bad delays), so we defaulted to the less agressive method. > > > (and we defaulted to that in v2.6.23 already) > > > > Yeah, I doubt the 2.6.23 scheduler will be usable for distros > > though... > > ... which is a pretty gross exaggeration belied by distros already > running v2.6.23. Sure, "enterprise" distros might not run .23 (or .22 or
Yeah, that's what I mean of course. And it's because of the performance and immediate upstream divergence issues with 2.6.23. Specifically I'm talking about the scheduler: they may run a base 2.6.23, but it would likely have most or all subsequent scheduler patches. > > I was just talking about the default because I didn't know the reason > > for the way it was set -- now that I do, we should talk about trying > > to improve the actual code so we don't need 2 defaults. > > I've got the patch below queued up: it uses the more agressive yield > implementation for SCHED_BATCH tasks. SCHED_BATCH is a natural > differentiator, it's a "I dont care about latency, it's all about > throughput for me" signal from the application. First and foremost, do you realize that I'm talking about existing userspace working well on future kernels right? (ie. backwards compatibility). > But first and foremost, do you realize that there will be no easy > solutions to this topic, that it's not just about 'flipping a default'? Of course ;) I already answered that in the email that you're replying to: > > I was just talking about the default because I didn't know the reason > > for the way it was set -- now that I do, we should talk about trying > > to improve the actual code so we don't need 2 defaults. Anyway, I'd hope it can actually be improved and even the sysctl removed completely. -- 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/