Re: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity

[jw schultz]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 09:58:04PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I have been hearing of people complaining the scheduler is worse than
> 2.4 so its not entirely obvious to me. But yeah lots of it is trial and
> error, so I'm not saying Con is wasting his time.

I've been watching Con and Ingo's efforts with the process
scheduler and i haven't seen people complaining that the
process scheduler is worse.  They have complained that
interactive processes seem to have more latency.  Con has
rightly questioned whether that might be because the process
scheduler has less control over CPU time allocation than in
2.4.  Remember that the process scheduler only manages the
CPU time not spent in I/O and other overhead.

If there is something in BIO chewing cycles it will wreak
havoc with latency no matter what you do about process
scheduling.  The work on BIO to improve bandwidth and reduce
latency was Herculean but the growing performance gap
between CPU and I/O is a formidable challenge.


-- 
________________________________________________________________
	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw@xxxxxxxxxx

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