On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 06:48 pm, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >> >> So ... is there any easy way I can diagnose this? Does anyone else
> >> >> have a similar problem?
> >> >
> >> > Most of us who have worked with an O(1) scheduler based kernel have
> >> > found this at various times. See the previous discussion with akpm
> >> > about the interactivity estimator. Akpm found that decreasing the
> >> > maximum timeslice duration would blunt the effect of the interactivity
> >> > estimator giving preference to the "wrong" task. In 2.4.20-ck4 I avoid
> >> > this problem with the "desktop tuning" of making the max
> >> > timeslice==min timeslice. Try an -mm kernel with the scheduler
> >> > tunables patch and try playing with the max timeslice. Most have
> >> > found that <=25 will usually stop these skips. The default max
> >> > timeslice of 300ms is just too long for the desktop and interactivity
> >> > estimator.
> >>
> >> Heh, cool. I have the same patch in my tree too, fixed it without
> >> rebooting even ;-) Still a *tiny* bit of skipping, but infinitely better
> >> than it was.
> >
> > Try decreasing prio_bonus_ratio to 15 as well
>
> Doesn't seem to make much difference, actually.
> But "waggle scrollbar a bit" isn't very scientific .. ;-)
> Does contest (or anything else) measure this kind of thing more precisely?
Last time I tried to do a whole swag of tunables it was showing differences
but I was plagued by memory leaks ruining the data. I'll try again in the
near future. Also Bill Davidsen's trivial response benchmark may show
something too.
Con
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 22:00:24 EST