Missing changelog to Ingo's J5 scheduler?

Missing changelog to Ingo's J5 scheduler?

[Zdenek Smetana]

I can't find it.

Re: Missing changelog to Ingo's J5 scheduler?

[Ingo Molnar]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Zdenek Smetana wrote:

> I can't find it.

J5 is the next step towards better interactiveness. Lowered the default
timeslice length from 250 msecs to 150 msecs - long timeslices were
clearly causing problems for certain applications.

there are some changes in my tree that will be -J6, will write a fuller
changelog, there are cleanups from other people included as well.

	Ingo

Re: Missing changelog to Ingo's J5 scheduler?

[Rene Rebe]

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: Missing changelog to Ingo's J5 scheduler?
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 23:28:24 +0100 (CET)

> 
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Zdenek Smetana wrote:
> 
> > I can't find it.
> 
> J5 is the next step towards better interactiveness. Lowered the default
> timeslice length from 250 msecs to 150 msecs - long timeslices were
> clearly causing problems for certain applications.

Yes. -J5 is even better here. With -J4 moving windows arround or doing
other GUI intensive stuff was interactive for a short time (1-2
seconds?) - and then the programm lost all interactivity (with some
unniced gcc in the background ...). With -J5 all applications keep
smoth even with two rebuilds (unniced) of a distribution running!

 10:54am  up  1:03,  4 users,  load average: 4.08, 3.08, 2.39
116 processes: 110 sleeping, 5 running, 1 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 83.6% user, 16.3% system,  0.0% nice,  0.0% idle
Mem:   513912K av,  498908K used,   15004K free,       0K shrd,  144312K buff
Swap:  524624K av,      92K used,  524532K free                  256536K cached

> there are some changes in my tree that will be -J6, will write a fuller
> changelog, there are cleanups from other people included as well.
> 
> 	Ingo

k33p h4ck1n6
  René

-- 
René Rebe (Registered Linux user: #248718 <http://counter.li.org>)

eMail:    rene.rebe@gmx.net
          rene@rocklinux.org

Homepage: http://drocklinux.dyndns.org/rene/

Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to this address will be
charged $25 for network traffic and computing time. By extracting my
address from this message or its header, you agree to these terms.

Re: Missing changelog to Ingo's J5 scheduler?

[Rene Rebe]

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: Missing changelog to Ingo's J5 scheduler?
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:56:09 +0100 (CET)

> 
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Rene Rebe wrote:
> 
> > Yes. -J5 is even better here. With -J4 moving windows arround or doing
> > other GUI intensive stuff was interactive for a short time (1-2
> > seconds?) - and then the programm lost all interactivity (with some
> > unniced gcc in the background ...). With -J5 all applications keep
> > smoth even with two rebuilds (unniced) of a distribution running!
> 
> could you also compare -J5 to -J2? [use the 2.4 patch, or vanilla
> 2.5.3-pre4 which has J2.]

Ok. After some massive rebooting:

-J2 is worser. starting XFree(+gnome) when three gcc's are running
take long (> half a minute?). With -J5 X start nearly normal (mostly
file access time anyway?) Dragging windows arround is nearly
equal. Although with -J2 i sometimes noticed a really big latency when
starting vim or man ...

Oh. btw. The -J5 was tested with 2.4.18-pre7; the rest was with
vanilla-2.4.17 - I hope this doesn't make a performance difference for
this tests ...

> 	Ingo

k33p h4ck1n6
  René

-- 
René Rebe (Registered Linux user: #248718 <http://counter.li.org>)

eMail:    rene.rebe@gmx.net
          rene@rocklinux.org

Homepage: http://drocklinux.dyndns.org/rene/

Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to this address will be
charged $25 for network traffic and computing time. By extracting my
address from this message or its header, you agree to these terms.

Re: Missing changelog to Ingo's J5 scheduler?

[Ingo Molnar]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Rene Rebe wrote:

> Yes. -J5 is even better here. With -J4 moving windows arround or doing
> other GUI intensive stuff was interactive for a short time (1-2
> seconds?) - and then the programm lost all interactivity (with some
> unniced gcc in the background ...). With -J5 all applications keep
> smoth even with two rebuilds (unniced) of a distribution running!

could you also compare -J5 to -J2? [use the 2.4 patch, or vanilla
2.5.3-pre4 which has J2.]

	Ingo

Re: Missing changelog to Ingo's J5 scheduler?

[Ingo Molnar]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Rene Rebe wrote:

> Ok. After some massive rebooting:
>
> -J2 is worser. starting XFree(+gnome) when three gcc's are running
> take long (> half a minute?). With -J5 X start nearly normal (mostly
> file access time anyway?) Dragging windows arround is nearly equal.
> Although with -J2 i sometimes noticed a really big latency when
> starting vim or man ...

thanks, so -J5 is an improvement on all fronts - good.

> Oh. btw. The -J5 was tested with 2.4.18-pre7; the rest was with
> vanilla-2.4.17 - I hope this doesn't make a performance difference for
> this tests ...

i dont think there is a difference, as long as you have enough RAM and
dont swap usually.

	Ingo

Re: Missing changelog to Ingo's J5 scheduler?

[piotr]

In mlist.linux.kernel, you wrote:
> 
> J5 is the next step towards better interactiveness. Lowered the default
> timeslice length from 250 msecs to 150 msecs - long timeslices were
> clearly causing problems for certain applications.
> 
> there are some changes in my tree that will be -J6, will write a fuller
> changelog, there are cleanups from other people included as well.
 
I'm running now J5 on 2.4.17 vanilla, UP.
Everything runs smooth. No problems whatsoever.