Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v5

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:

> > the biggest user-visible change in -v5 are various interactivity 
> > improvements (especially under higher load) to fix reported 
> > regressions, and an improved way of handling nice levels. There's 
> > also a new sys_sched_yield_to() syscall implementation for i686 and 
> > x86_64.
> > 
> > All known regressions have been fixed. (knock on wood)
> 
> I think the granularity is still much too low. Why not increase it to 
> something more reasonable as a default?

note that CFS's "granularity" value is not directly comparable to 
"timeslice length":

> [ Note: while CFS's default preemption granularity is currently set to
>   5 msecs, this value does not directly transform into timeslices: for 
>   example two CPU-intense tasks will have effective timeslices of 10 
>   msecs with this setting. ]

also, i just checked SD: 0.46 defaults to 8 msecs rr_interval (on 1 CPU 
systems), which is lower than the 10 msecs effective timeslice length 
CVS-v5 achieves on two CPU-bound tasks.

(in -v6 i'll scale the granularity up a bit with the number of CPUs, 
like SD does. That should get the right result on larger SMP boxes too.)

while i agree it's a tad too finegrained still, I agree with Con's 
choice: rather err on the side of being too finegrained and lose some 
small amount of throughput on cache-intense workloads like compile jobs, 
than err on the side of being visibly too choppy for users on the 
desktop.

	Ingo
-
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/