From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de>,
hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: dynamic sched timeslices
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:38:21 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1079581101.405919ade7af9@vds.kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040317163214.16c943c5.akpm@osdl.org>
Quoting Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>:
> Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Con,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 07:45:02AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > That's why I think we should offer the tunables.
> > >
> > > If your workload is so dedicated to just number crunching it isn't hard
> to add
> > > a zero to maximum timeslice in kernel/sced.c.
> >
> > Of course I can compile a custom kernel for myself and tune all sorts of
> > things. But this is not the way most Linux users want to use Linux any
> > more. Actually that's a long time ago.
> >
>
> I don't think we should be averse to offering a couple of nice high-level
> scheduler tunables. But I do think we should have testing results which
> clearly show that they provide some benefit, and we should agree that the
> scheduler cannot provide the same benefit automagically.
>
> Apologies in advance if we've seen those testing results and I missed it.
Well that reply takes my message out of context. I'm not averse to tunables - if
they do something.
The only evidence Kurt has shown so far is that he can decrease throughput. The
rest is theoretical based on a scheduler that isn't the 2.6 kernel.
Con
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-18 3:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-15 22:42 Kurt Garloff
2004-03-15 22:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-03-15 23:09 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-03-15 23:40 ` Andrew Morton
2004-03-16 11:36 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-03-16 13:13 ` Con Kolivas
2004-03-16 14:29 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-03-16 20:45 ` Con Kolivas
2004-03-18 0:20 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-03-18 0:32 ` Andrew Morton
2004-03-18 3:38 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2004-03-16 15:03 ` Timothy Miller
2004-03-16 15:08 ` Kurt Garloff
2004-03-23 9:23 ` Pavel Machek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1079581101.405919ade7af9@vds.kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=garloff@suse.de \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®