Re: Please test: HZ bump

On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 06:37:03PM -0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > On 24/12/18(Mon) 20:07, Scott Cheloha wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 03:39:43PM -0600, Ian Sutton wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:07 PM Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > > > > > > I'd like to improve the fairness of the

Re: Please test: HZ bump

On 24/12/18(Mon) 20:07, Scott Cheloha wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 03:39:43PM -0600, Ian Sutton wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:07 PM Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > > > > I'd like to improve the fairness of the scheduler, with the goal of > > > mitigating userland starvations. For that

Re: Please test: HZ bump

> And then... can we reduce wakeup latency in general without raising HZ? Other > systems (e.g. DFly) have better wakeup latencies and still have HZ=100. What > are they doing? Can we borrow it? https://frenchfries.net/paul/dfly/nanosleep.html OpenBSD is still adding that one tick which

Re: Please test: HZ bump

Scott Cheloha wrote: > - A tick is a 32-bit signed integer on all platforms. If HZ=100, we >can represent at most ~248 days in ticks. This is plenty. If HZ=1000, >we now only have ~24.8 days. Some may disagree, but I don't think this >is enough. So the question is what happens

Re: Please test: HZ bump

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 03:39:43PM -0600, Ian Sutton wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:07 PM Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > > I'd like to improve the fairness of the scheduler, with the goal of > > mitigating userland starvations. For that the kernel needs to have > > a better understanding of

Re: Please test: HZ bump

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:07 PM Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > I'd like to improve the fairness of the scheduler, with the goal of > mitigating userland starvations. For that the kernel needs to have > a better understanding of the amount of executed time per task. > > The smallest interval

Re: Please test: HZ bump

I've been testing the second version of this diff in a number of areas (servers, desktop, laptop, routers) and I haven't noticed anything interesting with power usage, run time on the laptops nor anything else, anywhere. That's probably a good thing...

Re: Please test: HZ bump

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 04:06:51PM -0400, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > I'd like to improve the fairness of the scheduler, with the goal of > mitigating userland starvations. For that the kernel needs to have > a better understanding of the amount of executed time per task. > > The smallest interval

Re: Please test: HZ bump

On 14/08/17(Mon) 22:32, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:06:51 -0400 > > From: Martin Pieuchot > > > > I'd like to improve the fairness of the scheduler, with the goal of > > mitigating userland starvations. For that the kernel needs to have > > a better

Re: Please test: HZ bump

Ted Unangst wrote: > Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > I'd like to improve the fairness of the scheduler, with the goal of > > mitigating userland starvations. For that the kernel needs to have > > a better understanding of the amount of executed time per task. > > > > The smallest interval currently

Re: Please test: HZ bump

Martin Pieuchot wrote: > I'd like to improve the fairness of the scheduler, with the goal of > mitigating userland starvations. For that the kernel needs to have > a better understanding of the amount of executed time per task. > > The smallest interval currently usable on all our architectures

Re: Please test: HZ bump

> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:06:51 -0400 > From: Martin Pieuchot > > I'd like to improve the fairness of the scheduler, with the goal of > mitigating userland starvations. For that the kernel needs to have > a better understanding of the amount of executed time per task. > >

Please test: HZ bump

I'd like to improve the fairness of the scheduler, with the goal of mitigating userland starvations. For that the kernel needs to have a better understanding of the amount of executed time per task. The smallest interval currently usable on all our architectures for such accounting is a tick.