Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44

[Ingo Molnar]

* Willy Tarreau <w@xxxxxx> wrote:

> I promised to perform some tests on your code. I'm short in time right 
> now, but I observed behaviours that should be commented on.

thanks for the feedback!

> 3) CFS-v4
> 
>   Feels even better, mouse movements are very smooth even under high 
>   load. I noticed that X gets reniced to -19 with this scheduler. I've 
>   not looked at the code yet but this looked suspicious to me. I've 
>   reniced it to 0 and it did not change any behaviour. Still very 
>   good. The 64 ocbench share equal CPU time and show exact same 
>   progress after 2000 iterations. The CPU load is more smoothly spread 
>   according to vmstat, and there's no idle (see below). BUT I now 
>   think it was wrong to let new processes start with no timeslice at 
>   all, because it can take tens of seconds to start a new process when 
>   only 64 ocbench are there. [...]

ok, i'll modify that portion and add back the 50%/50% parent/child CPU 
time sharing approach again. (which CFS had in -v1) That should not 
change the rest of your test and should improve the task startup 
characteristics.

	Ingo
-
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/