Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

[Jens Axboe]

On Mon, Sep 07 2009, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 09/07/2009 12:49 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>> I ran a simple test as well, since I was curious to see how it performed
>> wrt interactiveness. One of my pet peeves with the current scheduler is
>> that I have to nice compile jobs, or my X experience is just awful while
>> the compile is running.
>>    
>
> I think the problem is that CFS is optimizing for the wrong thing.  It's  
> trying to be fair to tasks, but these are meaningless building blocks of  
> jobs, which is what the user sees and measures.  Your make -j128  
> dominates your interactive task by two orders of magnitude.  If the  
> scheduler attempts to bridge this gap using heuristics, it will fail  
> badly when it misdetects since it will starve the really important  
> 100-thread job for a task that was misdetected as interactive.

Agree, I was actually looking into doing joint latency for X number of
tasks for the test app. I'll try and do that and see if we can detect
something from that.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/