Op Monday 12 March 2007, schreef Al Boldi:
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'd expect. The higher priority task gets
precisely
Op Monday 12 March 2007, schreef Con Kolivas:
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'd
Op Monday 12 March 2007, schreef Con Kolivas:
If we fix 95% of the desktop and worsen 5% is that bad given how much
else we've gained in the process?
Killing the known corner case starvation scenarios is wonderful, but
let's not just pretend that interactive tasks don't have any
Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Ingo Molnar:
so it is not at all clear to me that RSDL is indeed an improvement, if
it does not have comparable auto-nice properties.
Wasn't the point of RSDL to get rid of the auto-nice, because it caused
starvation, unpredictable behaviour and other
Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Ingo Molnar:
* 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 heuristics very much, but this time it's hardcoded into
the
Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Con Kolivas:
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
Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Ingo Molnar:
* jos poortvliet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Ingo Molnar:
so it is not at all clear to me that RSDL is indeed an improvement,
if it does not have comparable auto-nice properties.
Wasn't the point of RSDL
Op Sunday 18 March 2007, schreef Con Kolivas:
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's going on
Op Sunday 18 March 2007, schreef Mike Galbraith:
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 21:13 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Now for something constructive... by any chance is Mike running KDE
instead of GNOME?
Yes.
-Mike
Well, then, it might indeed be the KIOslave/pipe stuff. I experience sometimes
Op Sunday 18 March 2007, schreef Radoslaw Szkodzinski:
On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm. Sounds rather a lot like the...
X sucks, fix X and RSDL will rock your world. RSDL is perfect.
...that I've been getting.
Blah. Nothing's perfect. Especially not computer
Op Tuesday 20 March 2007, schreef Bill Davidsen:
Kasper Sandberg wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
(communication with the app
Op Tuesday 20 March 2007, schreef Linus Torvalds:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Xavier Bestel wrote:
Stock scheduler wins easily, no contest.
What happens when you renice X ?
Dunno -- not necessary with the stock scheduler.
Could you try something like renice -10 $(pidof Xorg) ?
Op Sunday 04 March 2007, schreef Willy Tarreau:
Hi Con !
This was designed to be robust for any application since linux demands a
general purpose scheduler design, while preserving interactivity, instead
of optimising for one particular end use.
Well, I haven't tested it yet, but your
Op Monday 05 March 2007, schreef Willy Tarreau:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 08:49:29AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
(...)
That's just what it did, but when you nice make -j4, things (gears)
start to stutter. Is that due to the staircase?
gears isn't an interactive task. Apart from using it
Op Tuesday 06 March 2007, schreef Willy Tarreau:
In a way, I think they are right. Let me explain. Pluggable schedulers are
useful when you want to switch away from the default one. This is very
useful during development of a new scheduler, as well as when you're not
satisfied with the default
On 9/17/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Rob Hussey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/BOUND_hackbench_benchmark2.png
heh - am i the only one impressed by the consistency of the blue line in
this graph? :-) [ and the green line looks a bit
Op Saturday 28 July 2007, schreef Linus Torvalds:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Michael Chang wrote:
I do recall there is one issue on which Con wouldn't budge -- anything
that involved boosting certain kinds of processes in the kernel.
I did that myself, so that's a non-issue.
No. The complaints
Op Saturday 28 July 2007, schreef Linus Torvalds:
snip stuff i generally sagree with
Compare this to SD for a while. Ponder.
Linus
Your point here seems to be: this is how it went, and it was right. Ok, got
that. Yet, Con walked away (and not just over SD). Seeing Con
Op Sat Dec 9 2006, schreef Con Kolivas:
(cut)
Changes (first significant changes since :
Added:
+sched-fix_iso_starvation.patch
A bug first introduced into 2.6.18-ck1/cks1 meant that SCHED_ISO tasks were
not being throttled when above their cpu limit. This presents a security
risk to any
Hold.
Why hold?
It's been shown this patchset really helps desktop users.
Has it? I don't think I've ever observed any benefits from it and I don't
think anyone has ever got down and worked out what its drawbacks might be,
and seen if they can be demonstrated in practice.
Well, I'd
Op Friday 09 February 2007, schreef Con Kolivas:
On Saturday 10 February 2007 00:13, jos poortvliet wrote:
Nobody has said anything about costs, indeed. Now afaik, swap prefetch is
designed to have no/as little as possible costs, so that makes sense.
Does it have to have some bugs, which
Op Saturday 10 February 2007, schreef Randy Dunlap:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:35:51 -0500 Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
I have an email sitting in my drafts folder stating that I'll no longer
accept any features unless they've been publically reviewed in detail
and run-time
Op Sat Dec 9 2006, schreef Con Kolivas:
(cut)
> Changes (first significant changes since :
> Added:
> +sched-fix_iso_starvation.patch
> A bug first introduced into 2.6.18-ck1/cks1 meant that SCHED_ISO tasks were
> not being throttled when above their cpu limit. This presents a security
> risk to
Op Monday 12 March 2007, schreef Al Boldi:
> 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'd expect. The higher priority task gets
> > > >
Op Monday 12 March 2007, schreef Con Kolivas:
> 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
Op Monday 12 March 2007, schreef Con Kolivas:
> > > If we fix 95% of the desktop and worsen 5% is that bad given how much
> > > else we've gained in the process?
> >
> > Killing the known corner case starvation scenarios is wonderful, but
> > let's not just pretend that interactive tasks don't
Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Ingo Molnar:
> so it is not at all clear to me that RSDL is indeed an improvement, if
> it does not have comparable auto-nice properties.
Wasn't the point of RSDL to get rid of the auto-nice, because it caused
starvation, unpredictable behaviour and other
Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Ingo Molnar:
> * 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 heuristics very much, but this time it's hardcoded
Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Con Kolivas:
> 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.
> >
> >
Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Ingo Molnar:
> * jos poortvliet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Ingo Molnar:
> > > so it is not at all clear to me that RSDL is indeed an improvement,
> > > if it does not have comparable aut
Op Sunday 18 March 2007, schreef Con Kolivas:
> 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
Op Sunday 18 March 2007, schreef Mike Galbraith:
> On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 21:13 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > Now for something constructive... by any chance is Mike running KDE
> > instead of GNOME?
>
> Yes.
>
> -Mike
Well, then, it might indeed be the KIOslave/pipe stuff. I experience
Op Sunday 18 March 2007, schreef Radoslaw Szkodzinski:
> On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hm. Sounds rather a lot like the...
> > X sucks, fix X and RSDL will rock your world. RSDL is perfect.
> > ...that I've been getting.
>
> Blah. Nothing's perfect. Especially not
Op Tuesday 20 March 2007, schreef Bill Davidsen:
> Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
> >>> I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
> >>> (communication with
Op Tuesday 20 March 2007, schreef Linus Torvalds:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > > >> Stock scheduler wins easily, no contest.
> > > >
> > > > What happens when you renice X ?
> > >
> > > Dunno -- not necessary with the stock scheduler.
> >
> > Could you try something like renice
Op Sunday 04 March 2007, schreef Willy Tarreau:
> Hi Con !
> > This was designed to be robust for any application since linux demands a
> > general purpose scheduler design, while preserving interactivity, instead
> > of optimising for one particular end use.
>
> Well, I haven't tested it yet, but
Op Monday 05 March 2007, schreef Willy Tarreau:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 08:49:29AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> (...)
>
> > > That's just what it did, but when you "nice make -j4", things (gears)
> > > start to stutter. Is that due to the staircase?
> >
> > gears isn't an interactive task. Apart
Op Tuesday 06 March 2007, schreef Willy Tarreau:
> In a way, I think they are right. Let me explain. Pluggable schedulers are
> useful when you want to switch away from the default one. This is very
> useful during development of a new scheduler, as well as when you're not
> satisfied with the
> > > Hold.
> > Why hold?
>
> > It's been shown this patchset really helps desktop users.
>
> Has it? I don't think I've ever observed any benefits from it and I don't
> think anyone has ever got down and worked out what its drawbacks might be,
> and seen if they can be demonstrated in practice.
Op Friday 09 February 2007, schreef Con Kolivas:
> On Saturday 10 February 2007 00:13, jos poortvliet wrote:
> > Nobody has said anything about costs, indeed. Now afaik, swap prefetch is
> > designed to have no/as little as possible costs, so that makes sense.
> > Does it h
Op Saturday 10 February 2007, schreef Randy Dunlap:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:35:51 -0500 Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > I have an email sitting in my drafts folder stating that I'll no longer
> > > accept any features unless they've been publically reviewed in detail
> > > and
Op Saturday 28 July 2007, schreef Linus Torvalds:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Michael Chang wrote:
> > I do recall there is one issue on which Con wouldn't budge -- anything
> > that involved boosting certain kinds of processes in the kernel.
>
> I did that myself, so that's a non-issue.
>
> No. The
Op Saturday 28 July 2007, schreef Linus Torvalds:
>
> Compare this to SD for a while. Ponder.
>
> Linus
Your point here seems to be: this is how it went, and it was right. Ok, got
that. Yet, Con walked away (and not just over SD). Seeing Con go, I wonder
how many did
On 9/17/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/BOUND_hackbench_benchmark2.png
>
> heh - am i the only one impressed by the consistency of the blue line in
> this graph? :-) [ and the green line
44 matches
Mail list logo
