David Schwartz wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I agree for giving a process more than a fair share, but I don't think
"latency" is the best term for what you describe later. If you think of
latency as the time between a process unblocking and the time when it
gets CPU, that is a more traditional
Bill Davidsen wrote:
> I agree for giving a process more than a fair share, but I don't think
> "latency" is the best term for what you describe later. If you think of
> latency as the time between a process unblocking and the time when it
> gets CPU, that is a more traditional interpretation.
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I agree for giving a process more than a fair share, but I don't think
latency is the best term for what you describe later. If you think of
latency as the time between a process unblocking and the time when it
gets CPU, that is a more traditional interpretation. I'm not
David Schwartz wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I agree for giving a process more than a fair share, but I don't think
latency is the best term for what you describe later. If you think of
latency as the time between a process unblocking and the time when it
gets CPU, that is a more traditional
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Linus, you're unfair with Con. He initially was on this position, and lately
worked with Mike by proposing changes to try to improve his X responsiveness.
I was not actually so much speaking about Con, as about a lot of the
David Schwartz wrote:
there were multiple attempts with renicing X under the vanilla
scheduler, and they were utter failures most of the time. _More_ people
complained about interactivity issues _after_ X has been reniced to -5
(or -10) than people complained about "nice 0" interactivity issues
David Schwartz wrote:
there were multiple attempts with renicing X under the vanilla
scheduler, and they were utter failures most of the time. _More_ people
complained about interactivity issues _after_ X has been reniced to -5
(or -10) than people complained about nice 0 interactivity issues to
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Linus, you're unfair with Con. He initially was on this position, and lately
worked with Mike by proposing changes to try to improve his X responsiveness.
I was not actually so much speaking about Con, as about a lot of the
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 16:59 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
>
> The deadline mechanism is easy to hit and works. Try printk'ing it.
I tried rc4-rsdl.33, and in a log that's 782kb, there is only one
instance of an overrun, which I created. On my box, it's dead code.
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 16:59 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
The deadline mechanism is easy to hit and works. Try printk'ing it.
I tried rc4-rsdl.33, and in a log that's 782kb, there is only one
instance of an overrun, which I created. On my box, it's dead code.
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 16:59 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> The deadline mechanism is easy to hit and works. Try printk'ing it.
Hm. I did (.30), and it didn't in an hours time doing this and that.
After I did the take your quota with you, it did kick in. Lots.
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from
On Friday 23 March 2007 15:39, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 09:50 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Now to figure out some meaningful cheap way of improving this accounting.
>
> The accounting is easy iff tick resolution is good enough, the deadline
> mechanism is harder. I did the
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 09:50 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Now to figure out some meaningful cheap way of improving this accounting.
The accounting is easy iff tick resolution is good enough, the deadline
mechanism is harder. I did the "quota follows task" thing, but nothing
good happens. That
Thanks for taking the time to actually look at the code. All audits are most
welcome!.
On Thursday 22 March 2007 18:07, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> This is a rather long message, and isn't directed at anyone in
> particular, it's for others who may be digging into their own problems
> with RSDL, and
All code reviews are most welcome indeed!
On Thursday 22 March 2007 20:18, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually, the numbers are an interesting curiosity point, but not as
> > interesting as the fact that the deadline mechanism isn't kicking in.
>
> it's
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 10:34 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Erk!
bzzt. singletasking brain :)
-
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
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 10:18 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, the numbers are an interesting curiosity point, but not as
> > interesting as the fact that the deadline mechanism isn't kicking in.
>
> it's not just the scheduling accounting
* Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, the numbers are an interesting curiosity point, but not as
> interesting as the fact that the deadline mechanism isn't kicking in.
it's not just the scheduling accounting being off, RSDL also seems to be
accessing stale data here:
>
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 05:49 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Mike, if you need my old scheddos, I can resend it to you as well as to
> any people working on the scheduler and asking for it. Although trivial,
> I'm a bit reluctant to publish it to the whole world because I suspect
> that distros
This is a rather long message, and isn't directed at anyone in
particular, it's for others who may be digging into their own problems
with RSDL, and for others (if any other than Con exist) who understand
RSDL well enough to tell me if I'm missing something. Anyone who's not
interested in RSDL's
This is a rather long message, and isn't directed at anyone in
particular, it's for others who may be digging into their own problems
with RSDL, and for others (if any other than Con exist) who understand
RSDL well enough to tell me if I'm missing something. Anyone who's not
interested in RSDL's
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 05:49 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Mike, if you need my old scheddos, I can resend it to you as well as to
any people working on the scheduler and asking for it. Although trivial,
I'm a bit reluctant to publish it to the whole world because I suspect
that distros based on
* Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, the numbers are an interesting curiosity point, but not as
interesting as the fact that the deadline mechanism isn't kicking in.
it's not just the scheduling accounting being off, RSDL also seems to be
accessing stale data here:
From
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 10:18 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, the numbers are an interesting curiosity point, but not as
interesting as the fact that the deadline mechanism isn't kicking in.
it's not just the scheduling accounting being off,
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 10:34 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Erk!
bzzt. singletasking brain :)
-
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
All code reviews are most welcome indeed!
On Thursday 22 March 2007 20:18, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, the numbers are an interesting curiosity point, but not as
interesting as the fact that the deadline mechanism isn't kicking in.
it's not just
Thanks for taking the time to actually look at the code. All audits are most
welcome!.
On Thursday 22 March 2007 18:07, Mike Galbraith wrote:
This is a rather long message, and isn't directed at anyone in
particular, it's for others who may be digging into their own problems
with RSDL, and
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 09:50 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
Now to figure out some meaningful cheap way of improving this accounting.
The accounting is easy iff tick resolution is good enough, the deadline
mechanism is harder. I did the quota follows task thing, but nothing
good happens. That just
On Friday 23 March 2007 15:39, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 09:50 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
Now to figure out some meaningful cheap way of improving this accounting.
The accounting is easy iff tick resolution is good enough, the deadline
mechanism is harder. I did the quota
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 16:59 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
The deadline mechanism is easy to hit and works. Try printk'ing it.
Hm. I did (.30), and it didn't in an hours time doing this and that.
After I did the take your quota with you, it did kick in. Lots.
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 06:07:33PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 16:11 +0100, Paolo Ornati wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:57:44 +0100
> > Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I was more than a bit surprised that mainline did this well, considering
> > >
Al Boldi wrote:
> Artur Skawina wrote:
>> Al Boldi wrote:
>>> - p->quota = rr_quota(p);
>>> + /*
>>> +* boost factor hardcoded to 5; adjust to your liking
>>> +* higher means more likely to DoS
>>> +*/
>>> + p->quota = rr_quota(p) + (((now - p->timestamp) >> 20) * 5);
>> mouse
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 16:11 +0100, Paolo Ornati wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:57:44 +0100
> Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I was more than a bit surprised that mainline did this well, considering
> > that the proggy was one someone posted long time ago to demonstrate
> >
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 17:02 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 15:57 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > 'f' is a progglet which sleeps a bit and burns a bit, duration depending
> > on argument given. 'sh' is a shell 100% hog. In this scenario, the
> > argument was set such that
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 15:57 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 'f' is a progglet which sleeps a bit and burns a bit, duration depending
> on argument given. 'sh' is a shell 100% hog. In this scenario, the
> argument was set such that 'f' used right at 50% cpu. All are started
> at the same time,
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 09:03 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Moving right along to the bugs part, I hope others are looking as well,
> and not only talking.
>
> One area that looks pretty fishy to me is cross-cpu wakeups and task
> migration. p->rotation appears to lose all meaning when you cross
> there were multiple attempts with renicing X under the vanilla
> scheduler, and they were utter failures most of the time. _More_ people
> complained about interactivity issues _after_ X has been reniced to -5
> (or -10) than people complained about "nice 0" interactivity issues to
> begin
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 16:47 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> 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
> >>>
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 08:16 -0700, Ray Lee wrote:
> On 3/20/07, Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've droppped it from my machine -- interactive response is much
> > more important for my primary machine right now.
>
> Help out with a data point? Are you running KDE as well? If you are,
>
Another data point: I'm getting stalls in mplayer. I'm assuming the stalls
occur when procmail runs messages through spamprobe, as the system is
otherwise idle. The stalls continue to occur (and I'm not sure that they
aren't worse) when X and/or mplayer are reniced to negative nice levels.
This
* Xavier Bestel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 07:11 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > I don't agree with starting to renice X to get something usable
>
> [...] Why not compensate for X design by prioritizing it a bit ?
there were multiple attempts with renicing X under the
* Xavier Bestel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 07:11 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
I don't agree with starting to renice X to get something usable
[...] Why not compensate for X design by prioritizing it a bit ?
there were multiple attempts with renicing X under the vanilla
Another data point: I'm getting stalls in mplayer. I'm assuming the stalls
occur when procmail runs messages through spamprobe, as the system is
otherwise idle. The stalls continue to occur (and I'm not sure that they
aren't worse) when X and/or mplayer are reniced to negative nice levels.
This
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 08:16 -0700, Ray Lee wrote:
On 3/20/07, Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've droppped it from my machine -- interactive response is much
more important for my primary machine right now.
Help out with a data point? Are you running KDE as well? If you are,
then it
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 16:47 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
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
there were multiple attempts with renicing X under the vanilla
scheduler, and they were utter failures most of the time. _More_ people
complained about interactivity issues _after_ X has been reniced to -5
(or -10) than people complained about nice 0 interactivity issues to
begin with.
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 09:03 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Moving right along to the bugs part, I hope others are looking as well,
and not only talking.
One area that looks pretty fishy to me is cross-cpu wakeups and task
migration. p-rotation appears to lose all meaning when you cross the
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 15:57 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
'f' is a progglet which sleeps a bit and burns a bit, duration depending
on argument given. 'sh' is a shell 100% hog. In this scenario, the
argument was set such that 'f' used right at 50% cpu. All are started
at the same time, and I
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 17:02 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 15:57 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
'f' is a progglet which sleeps a bit and burns a bit, duration depending
on argument given. 'sh' is a shell 100% hog. In this scenario, the
argument was set such that 'f'
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 16:11 +0100, Paolo Ornati wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:57:44 +0100
Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was more than a bit surprised that mainline did this well, considering
that the proggy was one someone posted long time ago to demonstrate
starvation issues
Al Boldi wrote:
Artur Skawina wrote:
Al Boldi wrote:
- p-quota = rr_quota(p);
+ /*
+* boost factor hardcoded to 5; adjust to your liking
+* higher means more likely to DoS
+*/
+ p-quota = rr_quota(p) + (((now - p-timestamp) 20) * 5);
mouse cursor stalls lasting almost
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 06:07:33PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 16:11 +0100, Paolo Ornati wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:57:44 +0100
Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was more than a bit surprised that mainline did this well, considering
that the proggy
Artur Skawina wrote:
> Al Boldi wrote:
> > --- sched.bak.c 2007-03-16 23:07:23.0 +0300
> > +++ sched.c 2007-03-19 23:49:40.0 +0300
> > @@ -938,7 +938,11 @@ static void activate_task(struct task_st
> > (now - p->timestamp) >> 20);
> > }
> >
>
Al Boldi wrote:
> --- sched.bak.c 2007-03-16 23:07:23.0 +0300
> +++ sched.c 2007-03-19 23:49:40.0 +0300
> @@ -938,7 +938,11 @@ static void activate_task(struct task_st
>(now - p->timestamp) >> 20);
> }
>
> - p->quota =
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I was very happy to see the "try this patch" email from Al Boldi - not
> because I think that patch per se was necessarily the right fix (I have no
> idea),
Well, it wasn't really meant as a fix, but rather to point out that
interactivity boosting is possible with RSDL.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> Linus, you're unfair with Con. He initially was on this position, and lately
> worked with Mike by proposing changes to try to improve his X responsiveness.
I was not actually so much speaking about Con, as about a lot of the
tone in general here.
Ray Lee wrote:
On 3/20/07, Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've droppped it from my machine -- interactive response is much
more important for my primary machine right now.
Help out with a data point? Are you running KDE as well?
Yes, KDE.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On 3/20/07, Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've droppped it from my machine -- interactive response is much
more important for my primary machine right now.
Help out with a data point? Are you running KDE as well? If you are,
then it looks like the common denominator that RSDL is
Linus Torvalds wrote:
Quite frankly, I was *planning* on merging RSDL very early after 2.6.21,
but there is one thing that has turned me completely off the whole thing:
- the people involved seem to be totally unwilling to even admit there
might be a problem.
Not to mention that it
Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 07:11 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> I don't agree with starting to renice X to get something usable
>
> X looks very special to me: it's a big userspace driver, the primary
> task handling user interaction on the desktop, and on some OS the part
>
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 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
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 07:11 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> I don't agree with starting to renice X to get something usable
X looks very special to me: it's a big userspace driver, the primary
task handling user interaction on the desktop, and on some OS the part
responsible for moving the mouse
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 07:11 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Also, while I don't agree with starting to renice X to get something usable,
> it seems real that there's something funny on Mike's system which makes it
> behave particularly strangely when combined with RSDL, because other people
> in
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 07:11 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Also, while I don't agree with starting to renice X to get something usable,
it seems real that there's something funny on Mike's system which makes it
behave particularly strangely when combined with RSDL, because other people
in
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 07:11 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
I don't agree with starting to renice X to get something usable
X looks very special to me: it's a big userspace driver, the primary
task handling user interaction on the desktop, and on some OS the part
responsible for moving the mouse
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) ?
Xavier Bestel wrote:
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 07:11 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
I don't agree with starting to renice X to get something usable
X looks very special to me: it's a big userspace driver, the primary
task handling user interaction on the desktop, and on some OS the part
Linus Torvalds wrote:
Quite frankly, I was *planning* on merging RSDL very early after 2.6.21,
but there is one thing that has turned me completely off the whole thing:
- the people involved seem to be totally unwilling to even admit there
might be a problem.
Not to mention that it
On 3/20/07, Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've droppped it from my machine -- interactive response is much
more important for my primary machine right now.
Help out with a data point? Are you running KDE as well? If you are,
then it looks like the common denominator that RSDL is handling
Ray Lee wrote:
On 3/20/07, Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've droppped it from my machine -- interactive response is much
more important for my primary machine right now.
Help out with a data point? Are you running KDE as well?
Yes, KDE.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Linus, you're unfair with Con. He initially was on this position, and lately
worked with Mike by proposing changes to try to improve his X responsiveness.
I was not actually so much speaking about Con, as about a lot of the
tone in general here.
Linus Torvalds wrote:
I was very happy to see the try this patch email from Al Boldi - not
because I think that patch per se was necessarily the right fix (I have no
idea),
Well, it wasn't really meant as a fix, but rather to point out that
interactivity boosting is possible with RSDL.
It
Al Boldi wrote:
--- sched.bak.c 2007-03-16 23:07:23.0 +0300
+++ sched.c 2007-03-19 23:49:40.0 +0300
@@ -938,7 +938,11 @@ static void activate_task(struct task_st
(now - p-timestamp) 20);
}
- p-quota = rr_quota(p);
+
Artur Skawina wrote:
Al Boldi wrote:
--- sched.bak.c 2007-03-16 23:07:23.0 +0300
+++ sched.c 2007-03-19 23:49:40.0 +0300
@@ -938,7 +938,11 @@ static void activate_task(struct task_st
(now - p-timestamp) 20);
}
- p-quota =
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:11:55PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Quite frankly, I was *planning* on merging RSDL very early after 2.6.21,
> but there is one thing that has turned me completely off the whole thing:
>
> - the people involved seem to be totally unwilling to even admit there
>
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 $(pidof Xorg) ?
Could you try something as simple and
Mark Lord wrote:
> Al Boldi wrote:
> >..
> > Mike, I'm not saying RSDL is perfect, but v0.31 is by far better than
> > mainline. Try this easy test:
> >
> > startx with the vesa driver
> > run reflect from the mesa5.0-demos
> > load 5 cpu-hogs
> > start moving the mouse
> >
> > On my desktop,
Kasper Sandberg wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
(communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
That's why
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 12:36 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 12:07 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> >> Dell notebook, single P-M-2GHz, ATI X300, open source X.org:
> >> (1) build a kernel in one window with "make -j$((NUMBER_OF_CPUS +
> 1))".
> >> (2) try to read
Xavier Bestel wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 12:07 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
Dell notebook, single P-M-2GHz, ATI X300, open source X.org:
(1) build a kernel in one window with "make -j$((NUMBER_OF_CPUS + 1))".
(2) try to read email and/or surf in Firefox/Thunderbird.
Stock scheduler wins easily,
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 12:07 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> Dell notebook, single P-M-2GHz, ATI X300, open source X.org:
> (1) build a kernel in one window with "make -j$((NUMBER_OF_CPUS + 1))".
> (2) try to read email and/or surf in Firefox/Thunderbird.
>
> Stock scheduler wins easily, no contest.
Al Boldi wrote:
..
Mike, I'm not saying RSDL is perfect, but v0.31 is by far better than
mainline. Try this easy test:
startx with the vesa driver
run reflect from the mesa5.0-demos
load 5 cpu-hogs
start moving the mouse
On my desktop, mainline completely breaks down, and no nicing may
Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 20:48 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
The most frustrating part of a discussion of this nature on lkml is that
earlier information in a thread seems to be long forgotten after a few days
and all that is left is the one reporter having a problem.
One?
Just so you know the context, I'm coming at this from the point of view
of an embedded call server designer.
Mark Hahn wrote:
why do you think fairness is good, especially always good?
Fairness is good because it promotes predictability. See the
"deterministic" section below.
even
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 07:21:47AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 19:27 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > > Wrong. I call a good job giving a _preference_ to the desktop. I call
> > > rigid fairness impractical for the desktop, and a denial of reality.
> >
> > Assuming
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 07:21:47AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 19:27 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Wrong. I call a good job giving a _preference_ to the desktop. I call
rigid fairness impractical for the desktop, and a denial of reality.
Assuming you *want*
Just so you know the context, I'm coming at this from the point of view
of an embedded call server designer.
Mark Hahn wrote:
why do you think fairness is good, especially always good?
Fairness is good because it promotes predictability. See the
deterministic section below.
even
Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 20:48 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
The most frustrating part of a discussion of this nature on lkml is that
earlier information in a thread seems to be long forgotten after a few days
and all that is left is the one reporter having a problem.
One?
Al Boldi wrote:
..
Mike, I'm not saying RSDL is perfect, but v0.31 is by far better than
mainline. Try this easy test:
startx with the vesa driver
run reflect from the mesa5.0-demos
load 5 cpu-hogs
start moving the mouse
On my desktop, mainline completely breaks down, and no nicing may
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 12:07 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
Dell notebook, single P-M-2GHz, ATI X300, open source X.org:
(1) build a kernel in one window with make -j$((NUMBER_OF_CPUS + 1)).
(2) try to read email and/or surf in Firefox/Thunderbird.
Stock scheduler wins easily, no contest.
What
Xavier Bestel wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 12:07 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
Dell notebook, single P-M-2GHz, ATI X300, open source X.org:
(1) build a kernel in one window with make -j$((NUMBER_OF_CPUS + 1)).
(2) try to read email and/or surf in Firefox/Thunderbird.
Stock scheduler wins easily, no
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 12:36 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
Xavier Bestel wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 12:07 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
Dell notebook, single P-M-2GHz, ATI X300, open source X.org:
(1) build a kernel in one window with make -j$((NUMBER_OF_CPUS +
1)).
(2) try to read email and/or
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 they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
That's why
Mark Lord wrote:
Al Boldi wrote:
..
Mike, I'm not saying RSDL is perfect, but v0.31 is by far better than
mainline. Try this easy test:
startx with the vesa driver
run reflect from the mesa5.0-demos
load 5 cpu-hogs
start moving the mouse
On my desktop, mainline completely
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) ?
Could you try something as simple and accepting that
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:11:55PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Quite frankly, I was *planning* on merging RSDL very early after 2.6.21,
but there is one thing that has turned me completely off the whole thing:
- the people involved seem to be totally unwilling to even admit there
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 19:27 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Wrong. I call a good job giving a _preference_ to the desktop. I call
> > rigid fairness impractical for the desktop, and a denial of reality.
>
> Assuming you *want* that. It's possible that the desktop may not be
> particularly
> P.S. "utter failure" was too harsh. What sticks in my craw is that the
> world has to adjust to fit this new scheduler.
>
> -Mike
Even when it's totally clear that this scheduler is doing what you asked it
do while the old one wasn't? It still bothers you that now you have to ask
for
1 - 100 of 240 matches
Mail list logo
