On Monday 16 April 2007 05:00, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Apr 15, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
It's a really good thing, and it means that if somebody shows that
your
code is flawed in some way (by, for example, making a patch that
people
claim gets better behaviour or
On Monday 16 April 2007 12:28, Nick Piggin wrote:
So, on to something productive, we have 3 candidates for a new scheduler so
far. How do we decide which way to go? (and yes, I still think switchable
schedulers is wrong and a copout) This is one area where it is virtually
impossible to
On Monday 16 April 2007 01:05, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. Since then I've been thinking/working on a cpu scheduler design
that takes away all the guesswork out of scheduling and gives very
predictable, as fair as possible, cpu distribution and latency while
Greetings all
Here is the current release of the Staircase cpu scheduler (the original
generation I design that spurned development elsewhere for RSDL), for
2.6.21-rc7
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/pre-releases/2.6.21-rc7/2.6.21-rc7-ck1/patches/sched-staircase-17.1.patch
To remind people
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 18:55, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:59:00AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.6.21-rc7-cfs-v2
534.80user 30.92system 2:23.64elapsed 393%CPU
534.75user 31.01system 2:23.70elapsed 393%CPU
534.66user
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 22:14, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 07:33:56PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 18:55, Nick Piggin wrote:
Again, for comparison 2.6.21-rc7 mainline:
508.87user 32.47system 2:17.82elapsed 392%CPU
509.05user 32.25system 2
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 22:13, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:53:34AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So looking at elapsed time, a granularity of 100ms is just behind the
mainline score. However it is using slightly less user time and
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 22:33, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 22:14, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 07:33:56PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 18:55, Nick Piggin wrote:
Again, for comparison 2.6.21-rc7 mainline:
508.87user
.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
kernel/sched.c | 61 ++---
1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc7-sd/kernel/sched.c
===
--- linux
Since there is so much work currently ongoing with alternative cpu schedulers,
as a standard for comparison with the alternative virtual deadline fair
designs I've addressed a few issues in the Staircase Deadline cpu scheduler
which improve behaviour likely in a noticeable fashion and released
On Thursday 19 April 2007 09:59, Con Kolivas wrote:
Since there is so much work currently ongoing with alternative cpu
schedulers, as a standard for comparison with the alternative virtual
deadline fair designs I've addressed a few issues in the Staircase Deadline
cpu scheduler which improve
On Thursday 19 April 2007 09:48, Con Kolivas wrote:
While the Staircase Deadline scheduler has not been completely killed off
and is still in -mm I would like to fix some outstanding issues that I've
found since it still serves for comparison with all the upcoming
schedulers.
While still
On Thursday 19 April 2007 10:41, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Thursday 19 April 2007 09:59, Con Kolivas wrote:
Since there is so much work currently ongoing with alternative cpu
schedulers, as a standard for comparison with the alternative virtual
deadline fair designs I've addressed a few issues
On Thursday 19 April 2007 13:22, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 12:12:14PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
Version 0.42
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-rc7-sd-0.42.patch
OK, I run some tests later today...
Thank you very much.
--
-ck
-
To unsubscribe from
On Thursday 19 April 2007 20:22, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 07:40:04PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Thursday 19 April 2007 13:22, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 12:12:14PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
Version 0.42
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase
they're there for.
and
Staircase-Deadline:
On Thursday 19 April 2007 09:59, Con Kolivas wrote:
Remember to renice X to -10 for nicest desktop behaviour :)
[1]The one caveat I can think of is that when you share X sessions across
multiple users -with a fair cpu scheduler-, having them all nice 0
On Thursday 19 April 2007 22:55, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 12:12:14PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Thursday 19 April 2007 10:41, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Thursday 19 April 2007 09:59, Con Kolivas wrote:
Since there is so much work currently ongoing with alternative cpu
.
Thanks to Peter Zijlstra for help.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
kernel/sched.c | 45 +++--
kernel/sysctl.c | 11 ++-
2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc7-sd/kernel/sched.c
Update documentation to reflect higher maximum rr_interval.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc7-sd/Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt
More aggressive nice discrimination by the Staircase-Deadline cpu scheduler
means ksoftirqd is getting significantly less cpu than previously. Adjust
nice value accordingly for similar cpu distribution.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
kernel/softirq.c |2 +-
1 file changed
On Thursday 19 April 2007 23:17, Mark Lord wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
s go ahead and think up great ideas for other ways of metering out cpu
bandwidth for different purposes, but for X, given the absurd simplicity
of renicing, why keep fighting it? Again I reiterate that most users of
SD
In order to keep raising the standard for comparison for the alternative new
scheduler developments, here is an updated version of the staircase deadline
cpu scheduler.
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20.7-sd-0.43.patch
On Friday 20 April 2007 04:16, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Thursday 19 April 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
[and I snipped a good overview]
So yes go ahead and think up great ideas for other ways of metering out
cpu bandwidth for different purposes, but for X, given the absurd
simplicity of renicing
On Friday 20 April 2007 05:26, Ray Lee wrote:
On 4/19/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The one fly in the ointment for
linux remains X. I am still, to this moment, completely and utterly
stunned at why everyone is trying to find increasingly complex unique
ways to manage X when
On Friday 20 April 2007 02:15, Mark Lord wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Thursday 19 April 2007 23:17, Mark Lord wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
s go ahead and think up great ideas for other ways of metering out cpu
bandwidth for different purposes, but for X, given the absurd
simplicity
On Friday 20 April 2007 01:01, Con Kolivas wrote:
This then allows the maximum rr_interval to be as large as 5000
milliseconds.
Just for fun, on a core2duo make allnoconfig make -j8 here are the build time
differences (on a 1000HZ config) machine:
16ms:
53.68user 4.81system 0:34.27elapsed 170
was broken by changing
time_slice to a signed int.
first_time_slice was not being cleared anywhere near often enough.
SCHED_BATCH tasks in the current implementation should advance prio_level
and best_static_prio.
Thanks Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] for making me check the fork code.
Signed-off-by: Con
A significant bugfix for forking tasks was just posted, so here is an updated
version of the staircase deadline cpu scheduler. This may cause noticeable
behavioural improvements under certain workloads (such as compiling software
with make).
Thanks to Al Boldi for making me check the fork code!
On Saturday 21 April 2007 22:12, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi Ingo, Hi Con,
I promised to perform some tests on your code. I'm short in time right now,
but I observed behaviours that should be commented on.
1) machine : dual athlon 1533 MHz, 1G RAM, kernel 2.6.21-rc7 + either
scheduler Test:
On Saturday 21 April 2007 22:12, Willy Tarreau wrote:
I promised to perform some tests on your code. I'm short in time right now,
but I observed behaviours that should be commented on.
Feels even better, mouse movements are very smooth even under high load.
I noticed that X gets reniced
On Sunday 22 April 2007 02:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Feels even better, mouse movements are very smooth even under high
load. I noticed that X gets reniced to -19 with this scheduler.
I've not looked at the code yet but this looked suspicious
On Sunday 22 April 2007 08:54, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
On Saturday 21 April 2007 18:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
correct. Note that Willy reniced X back to 0 so it had no relevance on
his test. Also note that i pointed this change out in the -v4 CFS
announcement:
|| Changes since -v3:
||
||
On Sunday 22 April 2007 04:17, Gene Heskett wrote:
More first impressions of sd-0.44 vs CFS-v4
Thanks Gene.
CFS-v4 is quite smooth in terms of the users experience but after prolonged
observations approaching 24 hours, it appears to choke the cpu hog off a
bit even when the system has
On Saturday 21 April 2007 22:12, Willy Tarreau wrote:
2) SD-0.44
Feels good, but becomes jerky at moderately high loads. I've started
64 ocbench with a 250 ms busy loop and 750 ms sleep time. The system
always responds correctly but under X, mouse jumps quite a bit and
typing in
-fix
---
SMP balancing broke on converting time_slice to usecs.
update_cpu_clock is unnecessarily complex and doesn't allow sub usec values.
Thanks to Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] for picking up SMP idle anomalies.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
kernel/sched.c | 42
Typo in comment, 1us not 1ms.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
kernel/sched.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc7-sd/kernel/sched.c
===
--- linux-2.6.21-rc7-sd.orig
A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the staircase
deadline cpu scheduler which improves behaviour dramatically on any SMP
machine.
Thanks to Willy Tarreau for noticing likely fault point.
Also requested was a version in the Makefile so this version of the patch
adds
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the staircase
deadline cpu scheduler which improves behaviour dramatically on any SMP
machine.
Thanks to Willy
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the
staircase deadline cpu scheduler which improves behaviour
On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:06, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote
On Sunday 22 April 2007 19:14, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 06:53:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:06, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote
On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:02, Michael Gerdau wrote:
Hi Con,
I now have 2.6.21-rc7-sd-0.45 running on my Intel Core2 T7600 2.33
machine and there is something I don't understand.
For testing I have a Perl script that does some numbercrunching
and runs a couple of hours.
I have two
On Sunday 22 April 2007 20:48, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Montag 09 April 2007 schrieb Mike Galbraith:
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 07:26 -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
On Monday 09 April 2007 01:38, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 09:08 -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Hi,
I
On Sunday 22 April 2007 19:14, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 06:53:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:06, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote
On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a separate
issue. Is it possible the multiple ocbench processes are naturally
synchronising and desynchronising and choosing to sleep and/or run at the
same time? I can remove
On Sunday 22 April 2007 22:54, Mark Lord wrote:
Just to throw another possibly-overlooked variable into the mess:
My system here is using the on-demand cpufreq policy governor.
I wonder how that interacts with the various schedulers here?
I suppose for the make kernel case, after a couple of
] for spotting more smp balancing
problems.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
kernel/sched.c | 36 +---
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc7-sd/kernel/sched.c
On Monday 23 April 2007 00:27, Michael Gerdau wrote:
Anyway the more important part is... Can you test this patch please? Dump
all the other patches I sent you post 045. Michael, if you could test too
please?
Have it up running for 40 minutes now and my perljobs show a constant
cpu
Yet another significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the
staircase deadline cpu scheduler which improves behaviour dramatically on any
SMP machine.
Thanks to Willy Tarreau for noticing more bugs.
As requested was a version in the Makefile so this version of the patch
adds
On Monday 23 April 2007 00:22, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a
separate issue. Is it possible the multiple ocbench
On Sunday 22 April 2007 23:07, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a
separate issue.
OK.
Is it possible the multiple
On Monday 23 April 2007 03:58, Thomas Backlund wrote:
mån 2007-04-23 klockan 01:03 +1000 skrev Con Kolivas:
Yet another significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the
staircase deadline cpu scheduler which improves behaviour dramatically on
any SMP machine.
Thanks to Willy
On Monday 23 April 2007 00:35, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Monday 23 April 2007 00:22, Willy Tarreau wrote:
X is still somewhat jerky, even
at nice -19. I'm sure it happens when it's waiting in the other array. We
should definitely manage to get rid of this if we want to ensure low
latency
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: send
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 and Alpha that make it hit
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 CPU scheduler changes
were dropped.
So
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 firefox
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 same patch series that constitutes the RDSL
Rotating Staircase
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
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 many
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
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'
hangs on qemu for almost 30
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, Beryl effects are silky smooth (possibly better
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 make
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 rebooted with NO_HZ and things are greatly improved
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 600MHz
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 rather complex
accounting
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 lies in giving too much quanta
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 March 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote
On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Con Kolivas wrote:
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
On Saturday 10 March 2007 09:29, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:18:05AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:39, Matt Mackall wrote:
So what's different between makes in parallel and make -j 5? Make's
On Saturday 10 March 2007 10:06, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 10:02:37AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Saturday 10 March 2007 09:29, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:18:05AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Con Kolivas wrote
On Saturday 10 March 2007 09:29, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:18:05AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Con Kolivas wrote:
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 09:12, Con Kolivas wrote:
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 March 2007 11:49, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 11:34:26AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
Ok, so some of the basics then. Can you please give me the output of 'top
-b' running for a few seconds during the whole affair?
Here you go:
http://selenic.com/baseline
http
On Saturday 10 March 2007 12:42, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 12:28:38PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Saturday 10 March 2007 11:49, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 11:34:26AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
Ok, so some of the basics then. Can you please give me
On Saturday 10 March 2007 13:26, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 01:20:22PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
Progress at last! And without any patches! Well those look very
reasonable to me. Especially since -j5 is a worst case scenario.
Well that's with a noyield patch and your
What follows this email is a series of patches for the RSDL cpu scheduler as
found in 2.6.21-rc3-mm1. This series is for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 and has some
bugfixes for the issues found so far. While it is not clear that I've
attended to all the bugs, it is worth noting that a complete rewrite is a
From: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add a list_splice_tail variant of list_splice.
Patch-by: Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Siddha, Suresh B [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off
From: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remove the sleep_avg field from proc output as it will be removed from the
task_struct.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Siddha, Suresh B [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off
From: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Modify the sched_find_first_bit function to work on a 180bit long bitmap.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Siddha, Suresh B [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
From: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remove the TASK_NONINTERACTIVE flag as it will no longer be used.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Siddha, Suresh B [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL
From: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add comprehensive documentation of the RSDL cpu scheduler design.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Siddha, Suresh B [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL
Here is an update for RSDL to version 0.28
Full patch:
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20-sched-rsdl-0.28.patch
Series:
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20/
The patch to get you from 0.26 to 0.28:
On Saturday 10 March 2007 18:25, Con Kolivas wrote:
What follows this email is a series of patches for the RSDL cpu scheduler
as found in 2.6.21-rc3-mm1. This series is for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 and has some
bugfixes for the issues found so far. While it is not clear that I've
attended to all
On Saturday 10 March 2007 22:49, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Oops
⇒ http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8166
Thanks very much. I can't get your config to boot on qemu, but could you
please try this debugging patch? It's not a patch you can really run the
machine with but might find where
On Sunday 11 March 2007 03:53, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le dimanche 11 mars 2007 à 01:03 +1100, Con Kolivas a écrit :
On Saturday 10 March 2007 22:49, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Oops
⇒ http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8166
Thanks very much. I can't get your config to boot
On Sunday 11 March 2007 04:01, James Cloos wrote:
Con == Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Con It's sad that sched_yield is still in our graphics card drivers ...
I just did a recursive grep(1) on my mirror of the freedesktop git
repos for sched_yield. This only checked the master
On Sunday 11 March 2007 05:21, Mark Lord wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
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.
..
But when it's bad, it stinks.
Like when a make -j2 kernel rebuild
On Sunday 11 March 2007 10:34, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 11 March 2007 05:21, Mark Lord wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
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.
..
But when it's bad
On Sunday 11 March 2007 06:11, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 01:09:35PM -0500, Stephen Clark wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
Here is an update for RSDL to version 0.28
Full patch:
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20-sched-rsdl-0.28.
patch
Series
Here's a big bugfix for sched rsdl 0.28
---
kernel/sched.c |7 +++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc3-mm2/kernel/sched.c
===
--- linux-2.6.21-rc3-mm2.orig/kernel/sched.c2007-03-11 11:04:38.0
On 11/03/07, Matt Mackall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've tested -mm2 against -mm2+noyield and -mm2+rsdl+noyield. The
noyield patch simply makes the sched_yield syscall return immediately.
Xorg and all tests are run at nice 0.
Loads:
memload: constant memcpy of 16MB buffer
execload: constant
On Sunday 11 March 2007 14:16, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:28:22 +1100 Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: Well... are you advocating we change sched_yield semantics to a
gentler form?
From a practical POV: our present yield() behaviour is so truly awful that
it's
On Sunday 11 March 2007 14:39, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:59:28 +1100 Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bottom line: we've had a _lot_ of problems with the new yield()
semantics. We effectively broke back-compatibility by changing its
behaviour a lot, and we can't
What follows this email is a patch series for the latest version of the RSDL
cpu scheduler (ie v0.29). I have addressed all bugs that I am able to
reproduce in this version so if some people would be kind enough to test if
there are any hidden bugs or oops lurking, it would be nice to know in
From: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add a list_splice_tail variant of list_splice.
Patch-by: Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Siddha, Suresh B [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off
From: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remove the sleep_avg field from proc output as it will be removed from the
task_struct.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Siddha, Suresh B [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off
From: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remove the TASK_NONINTERACTIVE flag as it will no longer be used.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Siddha, Suresh B [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL
From: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Modify the sched_find_first_bit function to work on a 180bit long bitmap.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Siddha, Suresh B [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
1 - 100 of 1175 matches
Mail list logo
