Re: [SHED] Questions.

[Ian Kumlien]

On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 13:31, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Ian Kumlien wrote:
> 
> >[Forgot to CC LKML last time, so i didn't remove old text ]
> >
> >On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 12:57, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Heh, well we discuss stuff sometimes, but we disagree on things.
> >>Which is a good thing because now our eggs are in two baskets.
> >>
> >
> >Yes, but sometimes it feels like a merger would be better... As long as
> >the propper quantum usage prevails =)

> Nope. They're going in different directions. We'd slow each other down.

Okis.

> >>Yeah quite a lot. Lots included removing the interactivity stuff.
> >>
> >
> >Humm, yeah, that should work automatically with the "used the full
> >quantum" if thats still in that is... =)
> >
> 
> You've lost me here.
> My stuff is the opposite of what the interactivity stuff is trying
> to do. The interactivity stuff _does_ kind of implement variable
> timeslices in the form of re queueing stuff. I think it would be a
> nightmare for them to put my variable timeslices on top of that and
> then get it to all work properly.

Well, i dunno how your patch works (i forget =))... But afair ingos
interactivity patches was about the amount of the quantum that was used.
And combining that with high = small and low = large would automatically
balance the priorities accordingly.

> >>Yeah it is, but the process will still take a lot of the penalty,
> >>and if it is using a lot of CPU in context switching, then it will
> >>get a lower priority anyway. Possibly there could be a very small
> >>additional penalty per context switch, but so far it hasn't been
> >>a big problem AFAIK.
> >>
> >
> >Well my idea was more... The highest pri gets MIN_QUANT and a preemt
> >can't happen faster than MIN_QUANT or so.. 
> >
> 
> My idea is to try to make it as simple as possible, and no
> simpler (as a great man put it!). So more is less if you
> know what I mean.

Yup =)

> I think this is going against how the scheduler (and UNIX
> schedulers in general) have generally behaved. Its very likely
> that you'd be better off fixing your app / other broken bit
> of kernel code though.
> 
> I don't know... maybe...

Humm i thought more in the direction of:
Preempt prior to MIN_QUANT being used -> put it on the runqueue as the
next process being scheduled, change the running tasks timeslice ->
continue with current task.

(make the current tasks timeslice appear as used.)

> >If i remember correctly, 2.6 spends much more time doing the actual
> >context switches (not time / context switch but amount during this
> >period). The new 1000 HZ thingy doesn't have to have that effect...
> >
> >And since to many context switches are inefficient imho, some standoffs
> >would be good =)
> >
> 
> I'm not sure. I think the 1000HZ thing is mainly from timer interrupts.
> The scheduler should be pretty well agnostic to the 100->1000 change,
> other than having higher resolution. Increased context switches might
> indicate something is not being scaled with HZ properly though.

hummm i dunno, but afair the scheduler uses that timing aswell... 

> Yes context switches are inefficient. The tradeoff is vs scheduling
> latency and there is no way around that.

Thus, keeping preempt from being able to preempt other tasks prior to
MIN_QUANT being used is bad.. =)

Which also might fix the "child preempting parent on fork" problem that
con patched afair.
(dunno if you have the same problem though...)

-- 
Ian Kumlien <pomac@xxxxxxxxx>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part