On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 00:44:10 +1100
Peter Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> OK. This probably means that the parameters that control the mechanism
> need tweaking.
>
> There should be a file /sys/cpusched/attrs/unacceptable_ia_latency which
> contains the latency (in nanoseconds) that the scheduler considers
> unacceptable for interactive programs. Try changing that value and see
> if things improve? Making it smaller should help but if you make it too
> small all the interactive tasks will end up with the same priority and
> this could cause them to get in each other's way.
I've tried different values and sometimes I've got a good feeling BUT
the behaviour is too strange to say something.
Sometimes I get what I want (dd priority ~17 and CPU eaters prio
25), sometimes I get a total disaster (dd priority 17 and CPU eaters
prio 15/16) and sometimes I get something like DD prio 22 and CPU
eaters 23/24.
All this is not well related to "unacceptable_ia_latency" values.
What I think is that the priority calculation in ingosched and other
schedulers is in general too weak, while in other schedulers is rock
solid (read: nicksched).
Maybe is just that the smarter a scheduler want to be, the more fragile
it will be.
--
Paolo Ornati
Linux 2.6.15-rc7-lial on x86_64
-
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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
