On Wednesday 22 March 2006 00:24, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 13:59 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > That would suit me perfectly. I think I would set them both to zero.
> > It's not clear to me what workload they can help, it seems that they
> > try to allow a sometimes unfair scheduling.
>
> Correct. Massively unfair scheduling is what interactivity requires.
To some degree, yes. Transient unfairness was all that it was supposed to do
and clearly it failed at being transient.
I would argue that good interactivity is possible with fairness by changing
the design. I won't go there (to try and push it that is), though, as the
opposition to changing the whole scheduler in place or making it pluggable
has already been voiced numerous times over, and it would kill me to try and
promote such an alternative ever again. Especially since the number of people
willing to test interactive patches and report to lkml has dropped to
virtually nil.
The yardstick for changes is now the speed of 'ls' scrolling in the console.
Where exactly are those extra cycles going I wonder? Do you think the
scheduler somehow makes the cpu idle doing nothing in that timespace? Clearly
that's not true, and userspace is making something spin unnecessarily, but
we're gonna fix that by modifying the scheduler.... sigh
Cheers,
Con
-
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]
