On Thursday 22 March 2007 10:48, Jeffrey Hundstad wrote:
> Artur Skawina wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> >> Note no interactive boost idea here.
> >>
> >> Patch is for 2.6.21-rc4-mm1. I have not spent the time trying to bring
> >> other bases in sync.
king for MAX_PRIO in normal_prio() may prevent oopses on
bootup on large SMP due to forking off the idle task.
Other minor cleanups.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt | 12 +
kernel/sched.c | 94 ++
On Saturday 17 March 2007 23:28, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We're obviously disagreeing on what heuristics are [...]
>
> that could very well be so - it would be helpful if you could provide
> your own rough definition for the
On Saturday 17 March 2007 22:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Despite the claims to the contrary, RSDL does not have _less_
> > heuristics, it does not have _any_. It's purely entitlement based.
>
> RSDL still has heuristi
On Saturday 17 March 2007 19:41, Serge Belyshev wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Nicholas Miell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The X people have plans for how to go about fixing this, [...]
> >
> > [...] Or will X regress forever once we switch to RSDL?)
> > We cannot regress
On Saturday 17 March 2007 15:40, Al Boldi wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 17 March 2007 08:55, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > With X nice'd at -10, and 11 hogs loading the cpu, interactivity looks
> > > good until the default timeslice/quota is exhausted and s
On Saturday 17 March 2007 08:55, Al Boldi wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Here are full patches for rsdl 0.31 for various base kernels. A full
> > announce with a fresh -mm series will follow...
> >
> > http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20.3-rsdl-0.31.
On Saturday 17 March 2007 02:14, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > The practice of renicing kernel threads to negative nice values is of
> > questionable benefit at best, and at worst leads to larger latencies when
> > kernel threads are busy on behalf of other
On Saturday 17 March 2007 02:34, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 00:40 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Here are full patches for rsdl 0.31 for various base kernels. A full
> > announce with a fresh -mm series will follow...
> >
> > http://ck.kolivas.org
On Saturday 17 March 2007 00:42, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 23:25 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > The good news is that in order to stay sane I've found ways of optimising
> > my computing position and could work for short stints on the rsdl code.
> >
From: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Add comprehensive documentation of the RSDL cpu scheduler design.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <[EMAIL PRO
The practice of renicing kernel threads to negative nice values is of
questionable benefit at best, and at worst leads to larger latencies when
kernel threads are busy on behalf of other tasks.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
kernel/workqueue.c |1 -
1 file chan
From: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Add a list_splice_tail variant of list_splice.
Patch-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "
From: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Remove the sleep_avg field from proc output as it will be removed from the
task_struct.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh
From: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Remove the TASK_NONINTERACTIVE flag as it will no longer be used.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <[EMAIL PRO
What follows is a patch series for the updated version of the Rotating
Staircase DeadLine cpu scheduler.
The dropping of one patch in the series and modest rewrite of certain
components means a fresh patch series is most appropriate, apologies for any
inconvenience.
Changes
- Implemented the
Here are full patches for rsdl 0.31 for various base kernels. A full announce
with a fresh -mm series will follow...
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20.3-rsdl-0.31.patch
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-rc3-sched-rsdl-0.31.patch
http://ck.kolivas.org/pa
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 10:08, Con Kolivas wrote:
> However, I must inform people that I have to arrest the RSDL development
> for at least this week. I have a new and fairly serious neck problem that
> is being exacerbated badly by sitting in front of the computer for any
> ext
On Friday 16 March 2007 05:58, Ray Lee wrote:
> On 3/15/07, Siddha, Suresh B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 05:05:13PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Thursday 15 March 2007 13:31, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > > > Just to see the % in
On Thursday 15 March 2007 13:31, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> Con,
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:58:11AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > There are updated patches for 2.6.20, 2.6.20.2, 2.6.21-rc3 and
> > 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 to bring RSDL up to version 0.30 for download here:
>
&g
On Thursday 15 March 2007 08:36, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 03:31, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > The current Linux scheduler makes one big assumption: that 1ms of CPU
> > time is the same as any other 1ms of CPU time, and that therefore a
> > process mak
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 03:31, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> The current Linux scheduler makes one big assumption: that 1ms of CPU
> time is the same as any other 1ms of CPU time, and that therefore a
> process makes the same amount of progress regardless of which particular
> ms of time it gets.
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 20:13, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 02:31 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Can you try the attached patch please Al and Mike? It "dithers" the
> > priority bitmap which tends to fluctuate the latency a lot more but in a
> >
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 07:58, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 03:03, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 March 2007 02:31, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Monday 12 March 2007 22:26, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > > I think, it should be possible to spre
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 03:03, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 02:31, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Monday 12 March 2007 22:26, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > I think, it should be possible to spread this max expiration latency
> > > across the rotation, should
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 06:54, Al Boldi wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 March 2007 03:03, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 14 March 2007 02:31, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Monday 12 March 2007 22:26, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > > >
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 05:21, Mark Lord wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Can you try the new version of RSDL. Assuming it doesn't oops on you it
> > has some accounting bugfixes which may have been biting you.
>
> Retesting today with 2.6.21-rc3-git7 + 2.6.21
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 03:03, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 02:31, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Monday 12 March 2007 22:26, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > I think, it should be possible to spread this max expiration latency
> > > across the rotation, should
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 02:31, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Monday 12 March 2007 22:26, Al Boldi wrote:
> > I think, it should be possible to spread this max expiration latency
> > across the rotation, should it not?
>
> Can you try the attached patch please Al and Mike? It &qu
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 02:35, Ash Milsted wrote:
> Here's my experience with RSDL 0.30 on 2.6.21-rc3-git6 under my normal
> usage scenarios...
>
> Plain desktop use (web browsing, music, etc): no noticeable change
>
> Desktop use during kernel compile (no -j): The compile impacts desktop
> use
less niced tasks.
Fix the accounting on -nice levels to not be scaled by HZ.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
kernel/sched.c | 69 +
1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
Index: lin
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 20:39, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I just retested with the encoders at nice 0, and the x/gforce combo is
> > terrible. [...]
>
> ok. So nice levels had nothing to do with it - it's some other
> regression somewhere. How does the van
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 20:29, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well I guess you must have missed where I asked him if he would be
> > happy if I changed +5 metrics to do whatever he wanted and he refused
> > to answer me. [...]
>
&
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 20:21, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 March 2007 19:18, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > [...] The situation as we speak is that you can run cpu intensive
> > > tasks while watching eye-candy. W
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 19:18, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] The situation as we speak is that you can run cpu intensive
> > tasks while watching eye-candy. With RSDL, you can't, you feel the
> > non-interactive load instantly. [...]
>
> i have to agre
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 17:08, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Virtual or physical cores has nothing to do with the interactivity
> regression I noticed. Two nice 0 tasks which combined used 50% of my
> box can no longer share that box with two nice 5 tasks and receive the
> 50% they need to perform. Th
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 16:10, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 09:51 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On 13/03/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > As soon as your cpu is fully utilized, fairness looses or interactivity
> > > loses.
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 10:46, David Miller wrote:
> From: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:58:11 +1100
>
> > http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-rc3-sched-rsdl-0.
> >30.patch
>
> FWIW, this boots and seems to work
On 13/03/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 07:38 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 March 2007 07:11, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > Killing the known corner case starvation scenarios is wonderful, but
> > let's not jus
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 07:11, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 05:49 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 March 2007 01:34, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 22:23 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > Mike the cpu is being proportio
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 01:34, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 22:23 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Mike the cpu is being proportioned out perfectly according to fairness as
> > I mentioned in the prior email, yet X is getting the lower latency
> > scheduling. I&
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 04:03, Ryan Hope wrote:
> I applied the detect-atomic-underflow patch and now I get these BUGs:
>
> BUG: atomic counter underflow at:
> [<78167931>] page_add_file_rmap+0x41/0x50
> [<78161c7d>] __handle_mm_fault+0x53d/0x900
> [<78106de0>] do_IRQ+0x40/0x80
> [<7811ff99>]
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 00:48, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:23:06PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > > We are getting good interactive response with a fair scheduler yet
> > > > > you seem intent on overloading it to find fault with it.
>
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 02:26, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 22:23 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > Mike the cpu is being proportioned out perfectly according to fairness
> > > as I mentioned in the prior
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 01:14, Al Boldi wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > The higher priority one always get 6-7ms whereas the lower priority
> > > > one runs 6-7ms and then one larger perfectly bound expiration amount.
> > > > Basically exactly as I&
On Monday 12 March 2007 22:26, Al Boldi wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Monday 12 March 2007 15:42, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Monday 12 March 2007 08:52, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > > And thank you! I think I know what'
On 12/03/07, Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 12 March 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
>To Con, I knew 2.6.20 worked with your earlier patches, so rather than
>revert all the way, I just rebooted to 2.6.20.2-rdsl-0.30 and I'm going
>to fire off another backup. I suspect it will work,
On Monday 12 March 2007 22:08, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The test scenario was one any desktop user might do with every
> > expectation responsiveness of the interactive application remain
> > intact. I understand the concepts here Con, and I'm not knockin
On Monday 12 March 2007 20:38, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 20:22 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Monday 12 March 2007 19:55, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > Hmm. So... anything that's client/server is going to suffer horribly
> > > unless niced tasks
On Monday 12 March 2007 20:38, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 20:22 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Monday 12 March 2007 19:55, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 19:29 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > I'll save you the trouble. I
On Thursday 08 March 2007 10:19, Chris Friesen wrote:
> I still haven't seen any replies, so I'm resending with a few more
> people directly in the TO list.
>
> The timeslice of a SCHED_RR process currently varies with nice level the
> same way that it does for SCHED_OTHER. I've included a small a
On Monday 12 March 2007 19:55, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 19:29 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > I'll save you the trouble. I just checked myself and indeed the load is
> > only 1. What this means is that although there are 2 tasks running, only
> >
On Monday 12 March 2007 18:48, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Monday 12 March 2007 18:22, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 13:10 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Full patch for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2:
On Monday 12 March 2007 18:22, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 13:10 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Full patch for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2:
> > > > http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-rc3-mm2-rsdl-
> > > >0.29.patch
> > >
>
Hi Gene.
On Monday 12 March 2007 16:38, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I hate to say it Con, but this one seems to have broken the amanda-tar
> symbiosis.
>
> I haven't tried a plain 21-rc3, so the problem may exist there, and in
> fact it did for 21-rc1, but I don't recall if it was true for -rc2. But
>
On Monday 12 March 2007 15:42, Al Boldi wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Monday 12 March 2007 08:52, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > And thank you! I think I know what's going on now. I think each
> > > rotation is followed by another rotation before the higher priority
On Monday 12 March 2007 19:17, Vincent Fortier wrote:
> > There are updated patches for 2.6.20, 2.6.20.2, 2.6.21-rc3 and
> > 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 to bring RSDL up to version 0.30 for download here:
> >
> > Full patches:
> >
> > http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20-sched-rsdl-0.30.p
> >
There are updated patches for 2.6.20, 2.6.20.2, 2.6.21-rc3 and 2.6.21-rc3-mm2
to bring RSDL up to version 0.30 for download here:
Full patches:
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20-sched-rsdl-0.30.patch
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20.2-rsdl-0.30.patch
.
The deadline mechanism should only be triggered if the quota is overrun
instead of as soon as the quota is expired allowing some aliasing errors in
scheduler_tick accounting. Fix that
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
kernel/sched.c | 24 +++
On Monday 12 March 2007 09:29, bert hubert wrote:
> Con,
>
> Recent kernel versions have real problems for me on the interactivity
> front, with even a simple 'make' of my C++ program (PowerDNS) causing
> Firefox to slow down to a crawl.
>
> RSDL fixed all that, the system is noticeably snappier.
>
On Monday 12 March 2007 08:52, Con Kolivas wrote:
> And thank you! I think I know what's going on now. I think each rotation is
> followed by another rotation before the higher priority task is getting a
> look in in schedule() to even get quota and add it to the runqueue quota
On Monday 12 March 2007 05:11, Al Boldi wrote:
> Al Boldi wrote:
> > BTW, another way to show these hickups would be through some kind of a
> > cpu/proc timing-tracer. Do we have something like that?
>
> Here is something like a tracer.
>
> Original idea by Chris Friesen, thanks, from this post:
>
On Sunday 11 March 2007 23:38, James Cloos wrote:
> |> See:
> |> http://webcvs.freedesktop.org/mesa/Mesa/src/mesa/drivers/dri/r200/r200_i
> |>octl.c?revision=1.37&view=markup
>
> OK.
>
> Mesa is in git, now, but that still applies. The gitweb url is:
>
> http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=mesa/mesa.
On Sunday 11 March 2007 22:39, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Hi Con,
>
> On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 14:57 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > What follows this email is a patch series for the latest version of the
> > RSDL cpu scheduler (ie v0.29). I have addressed all bugs that I am able
>
On Sunday 11 March 2007 20:21, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 11 March 2007 20:10, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le dimanche 11 mars 2007 à 11:07 +1100, Con Kolivas a écrit :
> > > sched rsdl fix
> >
> > Doesn't change a thing. Always breaks at the same place (thoug
On Sunday 11 March 2007 20:10, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le dimanche 11 mars 2007 à 11:07 +1100, Con Kolivas a écrit :
> > sched rsdl fix
>
> Doesn't change a thing. Always breaks at the same place (though
> depending on hardware timings? the trace is not always the same)
On Sunday 11 March 2007 15:03, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 10:01:32PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 01:28:22PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > Ok I don't think there's any actual accounting problem here per se
> > >
From: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Add comprehensive documentation of the RSDL cpu scheduler design.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <[EMAIL PRO
From: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Remove the TASK_NONINTERACTIVE flag as it will no longer be used.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <[EMAIL PRO
From: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Modify the sched_find_first_bit function to work on a 180bit long bitmap.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <[EM
The practice of renicing kernel threads to negative nice values is of
questionable benefit at best, and at worst leads to larger latencies when
kernel threads are busy on behalf of other tasks.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
kernel/workqueue.c |1 -
1 file chan
From: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Add a list_splice_tail variant of list_splice.
Patch-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "
From: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Remove the sleep_avg field from proc output as it will be removed from the
task_struct.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh
What follows this email is a patch series for the latest version of the RSDL
cpu scheduler (ie v0.29). I have addressed all bugs that I am able to
reproduce in this version so if some people would be kind enough to test if
there are any hidden bugs or oops lurking, it would be nice to know in
a
On Sunday 11 March 2007 14:39, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:59:28 +1100 Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Bottom line: we've had a _lot_ of problems with the new yield()
> > > semantics. We effectively broke back-compatibility by
On Sunday 11 March 2007 14:16, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:28:22 +1100 "Con Kolivas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote: Well... are you advocating we change sched_yield semantics to a
> > gentler form?
> >
> >From a practical POV: o
On 11/03/07, Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've tested -mm2 against -mm2+noyield and -mm2+rsdl+noyield. The
noyield patch simply makes the sched_yield syscall return immediately.
Xorg and all tests are run at nice 0.
Loads:
memload: constant memcpy of 16MB buffer
execload: constant r
Here's a big bugfix for sched rsdl 0.28
---
kernel/sched.c |7 +++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc3-mm2/kernel/sched.c
===
--- linux-2.6.21-rc3-mm2.orig/kernel/sched.c2007-03-11 11:04:38.0
On Sunday 11 March 2007 06:11, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 01:09:35PM -0500, Stephen Clark wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > >Here is an update for RSDL to version 0.28
> > >
> > >Full patch:
> > >http://ck.kolivas.org/patc
On Sunday 11 March 2007 10:34, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 11 March 2007 05:21, Mark Lord wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 05:07, Mark Lord wrote:
> > >> Mmm.. when it's good, it's *really* good.
> >
On Sunday 11 March 2007 05:21, Mark Lord wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 05:07, Mark Lord wrote:
> >> Mmm.. when it's good, it's *really* good.
> >> My desktop feels snappier and all of that.
> >
> >..
> >
> &
On Sunday 11 March 2007 04:01, James Cloos wrote:
> >>>>> "Con" == Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Con> It's sad that sched_yield is still in our graphics card drivers ...
>
> I just did a recursive grep(1) on my mirror of the freed
On Sunday 11 March 2007 03:53, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le dimanche 11 mars 2007 à 01:03 +1100, Con Kolivas a écrit :
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 22:49, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > > Oops
> > >
> > > ⇒ http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8166
> &
On Saturday 10 March 2007 22:49, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Oops
>
> ⇒ http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8166
Thanks very much. I can't get your config to boot on qemu, but could you
please try this debugging patch? It's not a patch you can really run the
machine with but might find where
On Saturday 10 March 2007 18:25, Con Kolivas wrote:
> What follows this email is a series of patches for the RSDL cpu scheduler
> as found in 2.6.21-rc3-mm1. This series is for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 and has some
> bugfixes for the issues found so far. While it is not clear that I've
> at
Here is an update for RSDL to version 0.28
Full patch:
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20-sched-rsdl-0.28.patch
Series:
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20/
The patch to get you from 0.26 to 0.28:
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20/sc
From: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Add comprehensive documentation of the RSDL cpu scheduler design.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <[EMAIL PRO
From: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Modify the sched_find_first_bit function to work on a 180bit long bitmap.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <[EM
From: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Remove the TASK_NONINTERACTIVE flag as it will no longer be used.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <[EMAIL PRO
From: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Remove the sleep_avg field from proc output as it will be removed from the
task_struct.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh
From: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Add a list_splice_tail variant of list_splice.
Patch-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "
What follows this email is a series of patches for the RSDL cpu scheduler as
found in 2.6.21-rc3-mm1. This series is for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 and has some
bugfixes for the issues found so far. While it is not clear that I've
attended to all the bugs, it is worth noting that a complete rewrite is a
te
On Saturday 10 March 2007 13:26, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 01:20:22PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Progress at last! And without any patches! Well those look very
> > reasonable to me. Especially since -j5 is a worst case scenario.
>
> Well that's wit
On Saturday 10 March 2007 12:42, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 12:28:38PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 11:49, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 11:34:26AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > Ok, so some of t
On Saturday 10 March 2007 11:49, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 11:34:26AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Ok, so some of the basics then. Can you please give me the output of 'top
> > -b' running for a few seconds during the whole affair?
>
> Here
On Saturday 10 March 2007 09:12, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 03:39:59PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 08:19:18AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 10
On Saturday 10 March 2007 09:29, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:18:05AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:39, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 08:19
On Saturday 10 March 2007 10:06, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 10:02:37AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 09:29, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:18:05AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 10 March
On Saturday 10 March 2007 09:29, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:18:05AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:39, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > So what's different betw
On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:39, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 08:19:18AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 10 March
201 - 300 of 592 matches
Mail list logo
