On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 04:35, Andrew Morton wrote:
> It is interesting that Felipe says that stock 2.5.69 was the best CPU
> scheduler of the 2.5 series. Do others agree with that?
Well this had the original tuning settings of 2 seconds for max sleep avg and
starvation limit, and 95% for child penalty, which are the 2.4 O(1) settings.
Interestingly, they are also what Ingo has put into the G3 patch (except for
starvation limit), and account for a large part of the improvement in G3 as
well as the increased resolution.
> And what about the O(1) backports? RH and UL and -aa kernels? Are people
> complaining about those kernels? If not, why? What is different?
No, this is what I have been trying to figure out; why is it that if we put
all the settings the same as 2.4 that it doesn't perform as nicely. 2.5/6
with the old settings is certainly better than with the vanilla settings, but
not as good as 2.4 O(1). It does not appear to be scheduler alone, but the
architectural changes to 2.5 that have changed interactivity are here to
stay, and improving the interactivity estimator in the scheduler does help it
anyway. It also gives us a chance to address certain corner cases that have
always existed.
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 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:30 EST