Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]

[Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 09:01:55AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Latency. Given N tasks in the system, an arbitrary task should get
> > onto the CPU in a bounded amount of time (excluding events like freak
> > IRQ holdoffs and such, obviously -- ie. just considering the context
> > of the scheduler's state machine).
> 
> ISTR Davide Libenzi having a scheduling latency test a number of years
> ago. Resurrecting that and tuning it to the needs of this kind of
> testing sounds relevant here. The test suite Peter Willliams mentioned
> would also help.

That helped me a lot at that time. At every context switch was sampling 
critical scheduler parameters for both entering and exiting task (and 
associated timestamps). Then the data was collected through a 
/dev/idontremember from userspace for analysis. It'd very useful to have 
it those days, to study what really happens under the hook 
(scheduler internal parameters variations and such) when those wierd loads 
make the scheduler unstable.



- Davide


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/