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. Pick one.
That's not true unless you refuse
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.
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
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 +++-
1 file chang
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=markup
>
> OK.
>
> Mesa is in git, now, but that still applies. The gitweb url is:
>
> http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=mesa/mesa.git
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
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 (though
>
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). Pre
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). Pretty
sure nothing happens
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 (though
depending on hardware timings? the trace
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
to reproduce in this version
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=1.37view=markup
OK.
Mesa is in git, now, but that still applies. The gitweb url is:
http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=mesa/mesa.git
and
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 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.
I'll try a simple
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.
As a
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 +++-
1 file changed, 11
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
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
at ch
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
task is getting a look in in schedule
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
I
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
> > > (althou
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
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 chan
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
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.
> >
> >..
> >
> >> Bu
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 freedeskto
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
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
> att
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
attended to all
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 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
Thanks very much. I can't get your config to boot
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 freedesktop git
repos for sched_yield. This only checked the master
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.
..
But when it's bad, it stinks.
Like when a make -j2 kernel rebuild
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.
My desktop feels snappier and all of that.
..
But when it's bad
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/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20-sched-rsdl-0.28.
patch
Series
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 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
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: our present yield() behaviour is so truly awful that
it's
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 changing its
behaviour a lot, and we can't
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
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: Siddha, Suresh B [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off
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 B [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off
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 PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
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 changed, 1
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 PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL
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
(although I did just recently post a bugfix
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:
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
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 with a n
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 you go:
&
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 between m
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
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 March 2007 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 10
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 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > My suspicion is the problem
On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > My suspicion is the problem lies in giving too much quanta to
> > newly-started processes.
>
> Ah that's some nice detective work there. Mainline does some rather
On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
> Ok, I've now disabled sched_yield (I'm using xorg radeon drivers).
Great.
> So far:
>
> rc2-mm2 RSDL RSDL+NO_HZ RSDL+NO_HZ+no_yield estimated CPU
> no load
> berylgood good great great~30% at
On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:15, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 05:27, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 07:39:05PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Friday 09 March 2007 19:20, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > And I've just rebooted wit
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.
>
> No noticeable jerkiness of windows/scrolling,
> which I *do* observe with the stock scheduler.
Thats good.
> But when it's bad, it stinks.
> Like when a
On Saturday 10 March 2007 05:27, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 07:39:05PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Friday 09 March 2007 19:20, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > And I've just rebooted with NO_HZ and things are greatly improved. At
> > > idle, Ber
On Friday 09 March 2007 19:53, Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 08:56:44AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > I did make oldconfig from http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/ck/config.txt
> > and chose all the defaults. Then building your fat config with -rc3, 'ps'
> > han
On Friday 09 March 2007 19:20, Matt Mackall wrote:
> And I've just rebooted with NO_HZ and things are greatly improved. At
> idle, Beryl effects are silky smooth (possibly better than stock) and
> shows less load. Under 'make', Beryl is still responsive as is Galeon.
> No sign of lagging mouse or
On Friday 09 March 2007 18:53, Matt Mackall wrote:
> Well then I suppose something must be broken. When my box is idle, I
> can grab my desktop and spin it around and generate less than 25% CPU
> with the CPU stepped all the way down from 1.7GHz to 600MHz (Beryl is
> actually much snappier than
On Friday 09 March 2007 18:53, Matt Mackall wrote:
Well then I suppose something must be broken. When my box is idle, I
can grab my desktop and spin it around and generate less than 25% CPU
with the CPU stepped all the way down from 1.7GHz to 600MHz (Beryl is
actually much snappier than many
On Friday 09 March 2007 19:20, Matt Mackall wrote:
And I've just rebooted with NO_HZ and things are greatly improved. At
idle, Beryl effects are silky smooth (possibly better than stock) and
shows less load. Under 'make', Beryl is still responsive as is Galeon.
No sign of lagging mouse or
On Friday 09 March 2007 19:53, Russell King wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 08:56:44AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
I did make oldconfig from http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/ck/config.txt
and chose all the defaults. Then building your fat config with -rc3, 'ps'
hangs on qemu for almost 30
On Saturday 10 March 2007 05:27, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 07:39:05PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 09 March 2007 19:20, Matt Mackall wrote:
And I've just rebooted with NO_HZ and things are greatly improved. At
idle, Beryl effects are silky smooth (possibly better
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.
No noticeable jerkiness of windows/scrolling,
which I *do* observe with the stock scheduler.
Thats good.
But when it's bad, it stinks.
Like when a make
On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:15, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Saturday 10 March 2007 05:27, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 07:39:05PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 09 March 2007 19:20, Matt Mackall wrote:
And I've just rebooted with NO_HZ and things are greatly improved
On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
Ok, I've now disabled sched_yield (I'm using xorg radeon drivers).
Great.
So far:
rc2-mm2 RSDL RSDL+NO_HZ RSDL+NO_HZ+no_yield estimated CPU
no load
berylgood good great great~30% at 600MHz
On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
My suspicion is the problem lies in giving too much quanta to
newly-started processes.
Ah that's some nice detective work there. Mainline does some rather complex
accounting
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 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
My suspicion is the problem lies in giving too much quanta
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 March 2007 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall 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 08:19:18AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
My suspicion
501 - 600 of 1175 matches
Mail list logo
