Re: Poor performance now? Please, put weighted velocities ctxts/s to the sched.decision!

["J.C. Pizarro" <jcpiza@gmail.com>]

On 2008/3/25, Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 1:29 PM, J.C. Pizarro <jcpiza@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  [2] "Re: Serious performance regression in Wine applications and Linux 2.6.24.*"
>  >  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/25/181
>  >  On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:49:13 -0700, "Ray Lee" wrote:
>  >  > Andi's idea of looking for excessive context switches is good -- I
>  >  > didn't see a response to that one. Other than that, if you're only
>  >  > noticing the issue in 3d games, then it could be several things (not
>  >  > just the scheduler).
>  >
>  >  The kernel needed the velocity parameter to gain it: ctxts per interval
>  >  (normally ctxts/s or ctxts/minute).
>
>
> We don't know that's the problem yet. The reporter is doing more testing.
>
>
>  >  "Please, put 64-bit counter per task and incr.by.one each ctxt switch."
>  >  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/23/398
>  >  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/23/401
>  >  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/23/406
>  >  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/24/1
>  >  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/24/103
>  >  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/24/157
>  >  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/26/159
>
>
> There are already counters recording the switches:
>     http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/25/314

I forgot this link, thanks!

It seems that they don't make ++ of counters in each switch ocurr.
I don't know how they record the switches.

The current scheduler don't take the count or the velocity of ctxts
as an extra parameter more in the decision of scheduling.

>  >  My proposal is free for yours, quasi-bastards, I won't charge you!
>
>
> My parents were married.

Luck boy ;) !