Re: [CFT][PATCH] new scheduler policy

[Nick Piggin]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:53:01AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > As per the latest trend these days, I've done some tinkering with
> > the cpu scheduler. I have gone in the opposite direction of most
> > of the recent stuff and come out with something that can be nearly
> > as good interactivity wise (for me).
> > I haven't run many tests on it - my mind blanked when I tried to
> > remember the scores of scheduler "exploits" thrown around. So if
> > anyone would like to suggest some, or better still, run some,
> > please do so. And be nice, this isn't my type of scheduler :P
> > It still does have a few things that need fixing but I thought
> > I'd get my first hack a bit of exercise.
> > Its against 2.6.0-test3-mm1
>
> Say, any chance you could spray out a brief explanation of your new
> heuristics?

Oh alright. BTW, this one's not for your big boxes yet! It does funny
things with timeslices. But they will be (pending free time) made much
more dynamic, so it should _hopefully_ context switch even less than
the normal scheduler in a compute intensive load.

OK. timeslices: they are now dynamic. Full priority tasks will get
100ms, minimum priority tasks 10ms (this is what needs fixing, but
should be OK to test "interactiveness")

interactivity estimator is gone: grep -i interactiv sched.c | wc -l
gives 0.

priorities are much the same, although processes are supposed to be
able to change priority much more quickly.

backboost is back. that is what (hopefully) prevents X from starving
due to the quickly changing priorities thing.


-
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/