From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268502AbUHQXI1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:08:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265395AbUHQXI1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:08:27 -0400 Received: from web13904.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.175.67]:8578 "HELO web13904.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S268502AbUHQXI0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:08:26 -0400 Message-ID: <20040817230825.4509.qmail@web13904.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:08:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Reply-To: spaminos-ker@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series (Attn: Nick Piggin and others) To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20040811093945.GA10667@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --- Ingo Molnar wrote: > > could you also try the 2.6.8-rc4-mm1 kernel? It has the array-switch > disabled which _could_ lead to smoother timeslice distribution. It still > has wakeup bonuses though. > > Ingo Sorry I didn't have the chance to try this test before: I didn't try it on 2.6.8.1-mm1 as I saw that maybe the patch related to the array sawitching was dropped. Anyway, I tried the test on 2.6.8-rc4-mm1 and it fails the test with 2 and 20 threads (delays of about 3 seconds for 2 threads, and 5 seconds with 20). Nicolas