On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 03:39:59PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 08:19:18AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 10
On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:39, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 08:19:18AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > My suspicion is the problem
On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > My suspicion is the problem lies in giving too much quanta to
> > newly-started processes.
>
> Ah that's some nice detective work there. Mainline does some rath
On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
> Ok, I've now disabled sched_yield (I'm using xorg radeon drivers).
Great.
> So far:
>
> rc2-mm2 RSDL RSDL+NO_HZ RSDL+NO_HZ+no_yield estimated CPU
> no load
> berylgood good great great~30% at 60
On Saturday 10 March 2007 07:15, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 05:27, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 07:39:05PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Friday 09 March 2007 19:20, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > And I've just reboote
On Saturday 10 March 2007 05:07, Mark Lord wrote:
> Mmm.. when it's good, it's *really* good.
> My desktop feels snappier and all of that.
>
> No noticeable jerkiness of windows/scrolling,
> which I *do* observe with the stock scheduler.
Thats good.
> But when it's bad, it stinks.
> Like when a "
On Saturday 10 March 2007 05:27, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 07:39:05PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Friday 09 March 2007 19:20, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > And I've just rebooted with NO_HZ and things are greatly improved. At
> > > idle
On Friday 09 March 2007 19:53, Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 08:56:44AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > I did make oldconfig from http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/ck/config.txt
> > and chose all the defaults. Then building your fat config with -rc3, 'ps'
>
On Friday 09 March 2007 19:20, Matt Mackall wrote:
> And I've just rebooted with NO_HZ and things are greatly improved. At
> idle, Beryl effects are silky smooth (possibly better than stock) and
> shows less load. Under 'make', Beryl is still responsive as is Galeon.
> No sign of lagging mouse or t
On Friday 09 March 2007 18:53, Matt Mackall wrote:
> Well then I suppose something must be broken. When my box is idle, I
> can grab my desktop and spin it around and generate less than 25% CPU
> with the CPU stepped all the way down from 1.7GHz to 600MHz (Beryl is
> actually much snappier than man
On Friday 09 March 2007 16:39, Matt Mackall wrote:
> First off, let me say that I think your approach has great promise,
> but I'm afraid it doesn't work so well here yet.
>
> Box is an R51 Thinkpad, 1.7GHz Pentium M. I'm using a make -j 5 as a
> test load.
>
> With 2.6.21-rc2-mm2, I get slightly s
On Thursday 08 March 2007 13:54, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:43:45 -0800 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:26:42 +1100
> >
> > Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What follows is the s
On Friday 09 March 2007 01:08, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Hi Con,
>
> One thing that has annoyed me greatly lately, is that scrolling in
> firefox very quickly becomes a huge pain if you have any load on your
> box. I typically do make -j4 kernel builds on my laptop (core duo), and
> try to stay out of fi
On Friday 09 March 2007 01:52, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Thursday 08 March 2007 15:19, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc3/
> >2. 6.21-rc3-mm2/
> >
> > - This is the same as 2.6.21-rc3-mm1, except Con's
On Friday 09 March 2007 01:52, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Summary from what I've been able to find:
> x86_32: ok
> x86_64: ok
> x86_64 fat config: scheduler code oops brought on by accessing /proc
> IA64 ok: ok
> Alpha: bitmap error, runs ok
PA-Risc: ok
Now what is it about ppc
On Friday 09 March 2007 07:25, Fabio Comolli wrote:
> Hi Con
> It would be nice if you could rebase this patch to latest git or at
> least to 2.6.21-rc3.
> Regards,
Check in http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/
There's an -rc3 patch there.
--
-ck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: sen
On Thursday 08 March 2007 15:19, Andrew Morton wrote:
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc3/2.
>6.21-rc3-mm2/
>
> - This is the same as 2.6.21-rc3-mm1, except Con's CPU scheduler changes
> were dropped.
As for benchmarking between them I haven't seen anyone p
On Thursday 08 March 2007 19:53, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This message is to announce the first general public release of the
> > "Rotating Staircase DeadLine" cpu scheduler.
> >
> > Based on previous work fr
On Thursday 08 March 2007 15:15, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 18:54:30 -0800 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:43:45 -0800 Andrew Morton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:26:42 +1100
> > &
On 08/03/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:43:45 -0800 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:26:42 +1100
> Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What follows is the same patch series th
Add comprehensive documentation of the RSDL cpu scheduler design.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Documentation/sched-design.txt | 273 -
1 file changed, 267 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc2-mm2/Documen
Implement the "Rotating Staircase DeadLine" RSDL cpu scheduler policy.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/linux/init_task.h |2
include/linux/sched.h | 32 -
kernel/sched.c| 1186 ++
3 fi
Modify the sched_find_first_bit function to work on a 180bit long bitmap.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/asm-generic/bitops/sched.h | 10 ++
include/asm-s390/bitops.h | 12 +---
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
Remove the TASK_NONINTERACTIVE flag as it will no longer be used.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/pipe.c |7 +--
include/linux/sched.h |3 +--
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc2-mm2/fs/
What follows is the same patch series that constitutes the RDSL "Rotating
Staircase DeadLine" cpu scheduler resynced for 2.6.21-rc2-mm2.
A rollup patch that can be applied directly to 2.6.21-rc2-mm2 is here:
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-rc2-mm2-sched-rsdl.patch
and the
Add a list_splice_tail variant of list_splice.
Patch-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/linux/list.h | 42 ++
1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc2-mm2/i
Remove the sleep_avg field from proc output as it will be removed from the
task_struct.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/proc/array.c |2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc2-mm2/fs/proc/a
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 01:47, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 00:24 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > printk(KERN_INFO "Time: %s clocksource has been installed.\n",
> > >clock->name);
> > > }
> > >
>
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 04:50, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Monday 05 March 2007, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >> This looks like -mm stuff if you want it in 2.6.22
> >
> > This needs to get to 2.6.21, it really is that big an improvement.
>
> As Con pointed out, for some worklo
On Tuesday 06 March 2007 23:52, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 22:58 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > (tglx cc'ed as he may know something about this - sorry if it's
> > inappropriate)
>
> John cc'ed as well :)
Thanks.
> > [] do_timer+0
(tglx cc'ed as he may know something about this - sorry if it's inappropriate)
On Tuesday 06 March 2007 19:44, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Temporarily at
>
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc2-mm2/
>
> Will appear later at
>
>
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/
On Tuesday 06 March 2007 18:02, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 17:25:36 +1100 Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched.c |2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1
dynamic priority boosting, even though it is
> CPU-intensive.
Haven't tried -mm in a while... but this could be more than a little hairy..
Call me crazy but I think the following might just be responsible...
---
Fix reverse idle at tick logic.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROT
On Tuesday 06 March 2007 10:05, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> jos poortvliet wrote:
> > Well, imho his current staircase scheduler already does a better job
> > compared to mainline, but it won't make it in (or at least, it's not
> > likely). So we can hope this WILL make it into mainline, but I wouldn't
On Tuesday 06 March 2007 05:23, Al Boldi wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Gears just isn't an interactive task and just about anything but gears
> > would be a better test case since its behaviour varies wildly under
> > different combinations of graphics cards, memory ba
On Sunday 04 March 2007 18:00, Con Kolivas wrote:
> This message is to announce the first general public release of the
> "Rotating Staircase DeadLine" cpu scheduler.
> A full rollup of the patch for 2.6.20:
> http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/sched-rsdl-0.26
On Tuesday 06 March 2007 05:29, Simon Arlott wrote:
> On 04/03/07 22:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Monday 05 March 2007 09:19, Simon Arlott wrote:
> >> If I run glxgears, thunderbird/firefox become really slow to
> >> respond/display and cpu usage isn't even at 100%
On Tuesday 06 March 2007 07:38, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 06:06:22PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > + * This is the time all tasks within the same priority round robin.
> > + * Set to a minimum of 6ms.
> > */
> > +#define RR_INTERVAL
On Monday 05 March 2007 22:59, Al Boldi wrote:
> Markus Törnqvist wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 08:34:45AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > >Ok, gears is smooth when you run "make -j4", but with "nice make -j4",
> > > gears becomes bursty. This looks like a problem with nice-levels. In
> > > gener
On Monday 05 March 2007 10:13, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> I've now given it a try with HZ=250 on my dual-athlon.
Great, thanks. The HZ should make very little difference, except for slightly
lower latencies as you increase the HZ.
> It works
> beautifully. I also quickly checked that playing mp3 do
On Monday 05 March 2007 04:33, Gerald Britton wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 06:02:13PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Add a list_splice_tail variant of list_splice.
> >
> > Patch-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL
On Monday 05 March 2007 09:19, Simon Arlott wrote:
> On 04/03/07 21:49, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Monday 05 March 2007 07:35, Al Boldi wrote:
> >> Con Kolivas wrote:
> >>> This means that if you heavily load up your machine without the use of
> >>>
On Monday 05 March 2007 07:35, Al Boldi wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > >> >> >This message is to announce the first general public release of
> > > >> >> > the "Rotating Staircase DeadLine" cpu scheduler.
>
> Thanks a lot
On Sunday 04 March 2007 18:45, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 04 March 2007 18:00, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > This message is to announce the first general public release of the
> > "Rotating Staircase DeadLine" cpu scheduler.
> >
> > Based on previous work from
On Monday 05 March 2007 00:25, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 04 March 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
> >On Sunday 04 March 2007 23:24, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> On Sunday 04 March 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
> >> >On Sunday 04 March 2007 22:08, Gene Heskett wrote:
> &
On Sunday 04 March 2007 23:24, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 04 March 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
> >On Sunday 04 March 2007 22:08, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> On Sunday 04 March 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
> >> >This message is to announce the first general public r
On Sunday 04 March 2007 22:08, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 04 March 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
> >This message is to announce the first general public release of the
> > "Rotating Staircase DeadLine" cpu scheduler.
>
> I assume to test this, we select the de
On Sunday 04 March 2007 18:00, Con Kolivas wrote:
> This message is to announce the first general public release of the
> "Rotating Staircase DeadLine" cpu scheduler.
>
> Based on previous work from the staircase cpu scheduler I set out to
> design, from scratch, a new
Add comprehensive documentation of the RSDL cpu scheduler design.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Documentation/sched-design.txt | 273 -
1 file changed, 267 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.20-rsdl/Documentation
Modify the sched_find_first_bit function to work on a 180bit long bitmap.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/asm-generic/bitops/sched.h | 10 ++
include/asm-s390/bitops.h | 12 +---
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
Remove the TASK_NONINTERACTIVE flag as it will no longer be used.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/pipe.c |7 +--
include/linux/sched.h |3 +--
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.20-rsdl/fs/
Remove the sleep_avg field from proc output as it will be removed from the
task_struct.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/proc/array.c |2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.20-rsdl/fs/proc/a
Add a list_splice_tail variant of list_splice.
Patch-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/linux/list.h | 42 ++
1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
Index: linux-2.6.20-rsdl/include/
sleep will wake up with quota available usually at the
current runqueue's priority_level or better. This means that the most latency
they are likely to see is one RR_INTERVAL, and often they will preempt the
current task if it is not of a sleeping nature. This then guarantees very
low latency fo
On Saturday 03 March 2007 12:31, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:31:19 -0500
> >
> > Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> the attached patch frees the swap space of already resident pages
> >> when swap space starts getting tight, instead of only freein
On 02/03/07, Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greetings;
I just rebooted to 2.6.21-rc2 and noted that getting x up and running was
about 15 seconds longer than usual. When it got a bash shell going I
went to it and ran htop which showed that the bulldog monitor was taking
90% of the cpu.
On Friday 02 March 2007 12:30, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 09:33:37 +1100
>
> Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Remove the SMT-nice feature which idles sibling cpus on SMT cpus to
> > facilitiate nice working properly where cpu power is shared. Th
architecture comes along with many logical cores sharing cpu power will be
unworkable.
Remove the associated per_cpu_gain variable in sched_domains used only by
this code.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/asm-i386/topology.h |1
include/asm-ia64/topo
On Friday 02 March 2007 00:30, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] Even though I'm finding myself defending code that has already
> > been softly tagged for redundancy, let's be clear here; we're talking
> > about at
On Thursday 01 March 2007 22:33, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 22:13 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > if then there should be a mechanism /in the hardware/ to set the
> > > priority of a CPU - and then the hardware could decide how to
> > > prioritiz
On Thursday 01 March 2007 19:46, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I see no real difference between the two assertions. Nice is just a
> > mechanism to set priority, so I applied your assertion to a different
> > range of priorities than nice covers, and returned
es for mangling the email address as I said :-(
> On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 09:58 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 February 2007 19:54, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > I was recently looking at that spot because I found that niced tasks
>
Apologies for the resend, lkml address got mangled...
On Tuesday 27 February 2007 19:54, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 09:33 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Thomas Gleixner napisał(a):
> > > > Adrian,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2007-0
On Sunday 25 February 2007 15:34, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I have a problem, Con. The patch itself works fine for me, BUT it doesn't
> update the version.h available in
> /lib/modules/2.6.20-ck1/source/include/linux to include the -ck1 in the
> reported kernel version when trying to build an fglrx dr
On Sunday 18 February 2007 13:38, Con Kolivas wrote:
> mdew . writes:
> > On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and
> >> interactivity. It is configurable to any workload but the defau
mdew . writes:
On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at the
desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis on serverspace.
Radoslaw Szkodzinski writes:
On 2/18/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Generally, the penalties for getting this stuff wrong are very very high:
orders of magnitude slowdowns in the right situations. Which I suspect
will make any system-wide knob ultimately unsuccessful.
Yes, the
Andrew Morton writes:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:00:06 +1100 Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
...
> But the one I like, mm-filesize_dependant_lru_cache_add.patch,
> has an on-off switch.
>
...
Do you still want this pat
On Sunday 18 February 2007 05:45, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Maintainers are far too busy off testing code for
> > 16+ cpus, petabytes of disk storage and so on to try it for themselves.
> > Plus they worry incessantly that my patches may harm those
On Saturday 17 February 2007 13:15, michael chang wrote:
> On 2/16/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm thru with bashing my head against the wall.
>
> I do hope this post isn't in any way redundant, but from what I can
> see, this has never be
On Saturday 17 February 2007 11:53, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > mm-filesize_dependant_lru_cache_add.patch
>
> I like it.
Thanks :-)
> Is any of this stuff ever going to be merged?
See the last paragraph here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/9/112
I'm th
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at the
desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis on serverspace.
Apply to 2.6.20
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/ck/patches/2.6
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 18:28, malc wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 February 2007 09:01, malc wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >>> Hi!
>
> [..snip..]
>
> >>> I have (had?) code
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 09:01, malc wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >> The kernel looks at what is using cpu _only_ during the
> >> timer
> >> interrupt. Which means if your HZ is 1000 it looks at
> >> what is running
> >> at precisely the moment those 1000 tim
On Monday 12 February 2007 18:10, malc wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Lots of confusion comes from this, and often people think their pc
> > suddenly uses a lot less cpu when they change from 1000HZ to 100HZ and
> > use this as an argument/reason for chan
On Monday 12 February 2007 16:54, malc wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On 12/02/07, Vassili Karpov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [..snip..]
>
> > The kernel looks at what is using cpu _only_ during the timer
> > interrupt. Which means if
On Monday 12 February 2007 16:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:44:22 +1100 "Con Kolivas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The kernel looks at what is using cpu _only_ during the timer
> > interrupt. Which means if your HZ is 1000 it looks at what
On 12/02/07, Vassili Karpov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
How does the kernel calculates the value it places in `/proc/stat' at
4th position (i.e. "idle: twiddling thumbs")?
For background information as to why this question arose in the first
place read on.
While writing the code dealing
On Saturday 10 February 2007 07:50, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 February 2007 07:30, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:13:03 +0100
> >
> > jos poortvliet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Nick's comment, replying to me some time ag
On Saturday 10 February 2007 07:30, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:13:03 +0100
>
> jos poortvliet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nick's comment, replying to me some time ago:
>
> I think I was thinking of this:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/2/6/509
Fortunately that predates a
On Saturday 10 February 2007 05:09, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> >I'm stuck developing code I'm having trouble proving it helps. Normal
> > users find it helps and an artificial testcase shows it helps, but that
> > is not enough, since the normal users will be tainted in their opinion,
> > and the arti
On Saturday 10 February 2007 00:13, jos poortvliet wrote:
> > > > Hold.
> > >
> > > Why hold?
> > >
> > > It's been shown this patchset really helps desktop users.
> >
> > Has it? I don't think I've ever observed any benefits from it and I
> > don't think anyone has ever got down and worked out wh
On Saturday 10 February 2007 00:13, jos poortvliet wrote:
> Nobody has said anything about costs, indeed. Now afaik, swap prefetch is
> designed to have no/as little as possible costs, so that makes sense. Does
> it have to have some bugs, which have to be adressed, before it can enter?
> I'm sure
This patchset is designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default -ck patch is aimed at the
desktop and -cks is available with more emphasis on serverspace.
Apply to 2.6.19
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/ck/patches/2.6
We don't fully utilise this pointer.
Con
---
Use the pgdat pointer we've already defined in wakeup_kswapd
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6.13-mm2/mm/vmscan.c
===
--- linux-2.
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 04:25, Adam Petaccia wrote:
> I think this patch is missing an IFDEF or something (I'm not really a
> programmer, I just like to pretend). Anyway, I've tried building -ck2
> without swap enabled, and it failed. Just to make sure, I make'd
> distclean, and I get the following:
>
These are patches designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default ck* patch is aimed at the
desktop and ck*-server is available with more emphasis on serverspace.
Apply to 2.6.13
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/2.6/2.6.13/2.6.13-ck2/
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 06:37 am, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 04.09.2005 [21:26:16 +0100], Russell King wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:10:54PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > I've got a few ideas that I think might help push Con's patch
> > > coalescing efforts in an arch-independent
kernel thread.
Leaving the pages on swap and in swap cache means that if any vm stress is
encountered without using those prefetched pages, the swap cache entries can
be dropped and they are already in swap without needing to be rewritten out.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
i
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 18:06, Russell King wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 06:01:08PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:58, Russell King wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 04:13:10PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > Noone's ignoring you.
&g
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:58, Russell King wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 04:13:10PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Noone's ignoring you.
> >
> > What we need to do is ensure that dynamic ticks is working properly on
> > x86 and worth including before anything else. If
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 02:56, Russell King wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 01:43:57AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Ok I've resynced all the patches with 2.6.13-mm1, made some cleanups and
> > minor modifications. As pm timer is the only supported timer for dynticks
> > I&#x
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Modified for better smp scalability and accurate time by Srivatsa Vaddagiri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, with minor cleanups and modifications by Con Kolivas.
Signed-off-By: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: li
Con
---
This patch uses the lost tick information returned by mark_offset()
function in dyn-tick, to recover time.
Code by Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6.13-mm1/arch/i386/kernel/dyn-tick.c
===
--- linux-2.
Con
---
Currently, lost tick calculation in timer_pm.c is based on number
of microseconds that has elapsed since the last tick. Calculating
the number of microseconds is approximated by cyc2us, which
basically does :
microsec = (cycles * 286) / 1024
Consider 10 ticks lost. This amounts to 1
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 01:01, Pedro Venda wrote:
> On Thursday 01 September 2005 14:18, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:18, Hans Kristian Rosbach wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 23:46 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > Here is a working swap prefet
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:19, Anupama Chandwani wrote:
> Hello,
> I am a final year coputre enginering student from Pune university,India.
> Im interested in linux kernel & saw the plugsched echanism, how its been
> made possible to change schedler policy at compile time.
>
> However, Im thinking of a
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:18, Hans Kristian Rosbach wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 23:46 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Here is a working swap prefetching patch for 2.6.13. I have resuscitated
> > and rewritten some early prefetch code Thomas Schlichter did in late 2.5
> > to
f the page needs to swap back out.
Cheers,
Con Kolivas
Index: linux-2.6.13/include/linux/fs.h
===
--- linux-2.6.13.orig/include/linux/fs.h 2005-09-01 23:24:27.0 +1000
+++ linux-2.6.13/include/linux/fs.h 2005-09-01 23:25:07.0
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 02:58 am, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Following patches related to dynamic tick are posted in separate mails,
> for convenience of review. The first patch probably applies w/o dynamic
> tick consideration also.
>
> Patch 1/3 -> Fixup lost tick calculation in timer_pm.c
> Patch 2
301 - 400 of 592 matches
Mail list logo
