Re: [PATCH] sched: high-res preemption tick

2007-10-13 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 01:13 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 11:17 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Ah, but HRTICK is not compatible with PREEMPT_RESTRICT, it will be > > > similar to !WAKEUP_PREEMPT. > > > > (I do plan to fix that eventually, just need to do it) > > I gu

Re: [PATCH] sched: high-res preemption tick

2007-10-13 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 01:13 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 11:17 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Ah, but HRTICK is not compatible with PREEMPT_RESTRICT, it will be > > > similar to !WAKEUP_PREEMPT. > > > > (I do plan to fix that eventually, just need to do it) > > I g

Re: [PATCH] sched: high-res preemption tick

2007-10-13 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 11:17 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Ah, but HRTICK is not compatible with PREEMPT_RESTRICT, it will be > > similar to !WAKEUP_PREEMPT. > > (I do plan to fix that eventually, just need to do it) I guess something like this ought to do, but its a tad late so I'm quite sur

Re: [PATCH] sched: high-res preemption tick

2007-10-13 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 11:17 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Also, this seems to suggest iperf would like SCHED_BATCH. Yes. Throughput falls as preemption climbs. -Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PATCH] sched: high-res preemption tick

2007-10-13 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 10:55 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 09:18 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 22:51 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Subject: sched: high-res preemption tick > > > > > > Use HR-timers (when available) to deliver an accurate preempt

Re: [PATCH] sched: high-res preemption tick

2007-10-13 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 09:18 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 22:51 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Subject: sched: high-res preemption tick > > > > Use HR-timers (when available) to deliver an accurate preemption tick. > > This patch further reduced iperf context switching, a

Re: [PATCH] sched: high-res preemption tick

2007-10-13 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 22:51 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Subject: sched: high-res preemption tick > > Use HR-timers (when available) to deliver an accurate preemption tick. This patch further reduced iperf context switching, and boosted throughput. iperf -c localhost -P 10 -t 300 Previously r

[PATCH] sched: high-res preemption tick

2007-10-12 Thread Peter Zijlstra
Subject: sched: high-res preemption tick Use HR-timers (when available) to deliver an accurate preemption tick. The regular scheduler tick that runs at 1/HZ can be too coarse when nice level are used. The fairness system will still keep the cpu utilisation 'fair' by then delaying the task that go