On Tuesday 21 March 2006 20:32, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 07:39:11PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday 21 March 2006 15:39, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 01:19:49AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 22 March 2006 01:17, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 00:53 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > > *Blink*
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you having a bad hair day??
> > > >
> > > > My hair is approximately 3mm long so it's kinda hard for that to happen.
> > > >
> > > > What you're fixing with unfairness is worth pursuing. The 'ls' issue just
> > > > blows my mind though for reasons I've just said. Where are the magic cycles
> > > > going when nothing else is running that make it take ten times longer?
> > >
> > > Con, those cycles are not "magic", if you look at the numbers, the time is
> > > not spent in the process itself. From what has been observed since the
> > > beginning, it is spent :
> > > - in other processes which are starvating the CPU (eg: X11 when xterm
> > > scrolls)
> > > - in context switches when you have a pipe somewhere and the CPU is
> > > bouncing between tasks.
> > >
> > > Concerning your angriness about me being OK with (0,0) and still
> > > asking for tunables, it's precisely because I know that *my* workload
> > > is not everyone else's, and I don't want to conclude too quickly that
> > > there are only two types of workloads.
> >
> > Well, perhaps we can assume there are only two types of workloads and
> > wait for a test case that will show the assumption is wrong?
>
> It would certainly fit most usages, but as soon as we find another group
> of users complaining, we will add another sysctl just for them ? Perhaps
> we could just resume the two current sysctls into one called
> "interactivity_boost" with a value between 0 and 100, with the ability
> for any user to increase or decrease it easily ? Mainline would be
> pre-configured with something reasonable, like what Mike proposed as
> default values for example, and server admins would only set it to
> zero while desktop-intensive users could increase it a bit if they like
> to.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Greetings,
Rafael
-
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]
