From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754069AbXDOXY3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:24:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754070AbXDOXY3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:24:29 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:58662 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754069AbXDOXY2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:24:28 -0400 Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS] From: Arjan van de Ven To: Ismail =?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=F6nmez?= Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Con Kolivas , Nick Piggin , Mike Galbraith , Thomas Gleixner In-Reply-To: <200704160149.42914.ismail@pardus.org.tr> References: <20070413202100.GA9957@elte.hu> <200704160149.42914.ismail@pardus.org.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Organization: Intel International BV Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:23:08 -0700 Message-Id: <1176679389.3945.66.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 (2.8.3-2.fc6) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 01:49 +0300, Ismail Dönmez wrote: > Hi, > On Friday 13 April 2007 23:21:00 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > [announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler > > [CFS] > > > > i'm pleased to announce the first release of the "Modular Scheduler Core > > and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]" patchset: > > > > http://redhat.com/~mingo/cfs-scheduler/sched-modular+cfs.patch > > Tested this on top of Linus' GIT tree but the system gets very unresponsive > during high disk i/o using ext3 as filesystem but even writing a 300mb file > to a usb disk (iPod actually) has the same affect. just to make sure; this exact same workload but with the stock scheduler does not have this effect? if so, then it could well be that the scheduler is too fair for it's own good (being really fair inevitably ends up not batching as much as one should, and batching is needed to get any kind of decent performance out of disks nowadays) -- if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org