Re: #define HZ 1024 -- negative effects?

[Mike Galbraith]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Nigel Gamble wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Nigel Gamble wrote:
> > > > What about SCHED_YIELD and allocating during vm stress times?
> >
> > snip
> >
> > > A well-written GUI should not be using SCHED_YIELD.  If it is
> >
> > I was refering to the gui (or other tasks) allocating memory during
> > vm stress periods, and running into the yield in __alloc_pages()..
> > not a voluntary yield.
>
> Oh, I see.  Well, if this were causing the problem, then running the GUI
> at a real-time priority would be a better solution than increasing the
> clock frequency, since SCHED_YIELD has no effect on real-time tasks
> unless there are other runnable real-time tasks at the same priority.
> The call to schedule() would just reschedule the real-time GUI task
> itself immediately.
>
> However, in times of vm stress it is more likely that GUI performance
> problems would be caused by parts of the GUI having been paged out,
> rather than by anything which could be helped by scheduling differences.

Agreed.  I wasn't thinking about swapping, only kswapd not quite keeping
up with laundering, and then user tasks having to pick up some of the
load.  Anyway, I've been told that for most values of HZ the slice is
50ms, so my reasoning wrt HZ/SCHED_YIELD was wrong.  (begs the question
why do some archs use higher HZ values?)

	-Mike