Re: [patch] O(1) scheduler-H6/H7/I0 and nice +19

[Ed Tomlinson]

The 2.4.17-I0 patch makes things much better here.  Does this one
suffer from the same bugs that the 2.5.2 version has?  

  PID USER     PRI  NI  SIZE  RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM   TIME COMMAND
  790 ed        44  19 14320  13M   640 R N  69.4  2.7 166:18 setiathome
 7676 ed         0   0 14908  14M 11036 R    16.7  2.8   0:13 kmail
 5703 root       0 -10 82596  23M  1808 R <  11.2  4.6   2:23 XFree86
 7725 ed         0   0  1016 1016   776 R     1.3  0.1   0:00 top
 5803 ed         0   0  3764 3764  2904 R     0.5  0.7   0:15 gkrellm
 7720 ed         0   0  9752 9752  7856 R     0.3  1.8   0:04 kdeinit
 5725 ed         0   0  7524 7520  6888 S     0.1  1.4   0:01 kdeinit
    1 root       0   0   520  472   452 S     0.0  0.0   0:07 init
    2 root       0   0     0    0     0 SW    0.0  0.0   0:00 keventd
    3 root      17  19     0    0     0 SWN   0.0  0.0   0:00 ksoftirqd_CPU0
    4 root       0   0     0    0     0 SW    0.0  0.0   0:00 kswapd
    5 root      25   0     0    0     0 SW    0.0  0.0   0:00 bdflush
    6 root       0   0     0    0     0 SW    0.0  0.0   0:02 kupdated
    7 root      12   0     0    0     0 SW    0.0  0.0   0:00 khubd
   18 root       0   0     0    0     0 SW    0.0  0.0   0:00 kreiserfsd
   60 root       0   0     0    0     0 SW    0.0  0.0   0:00 mdrecoveryd
  219 root       0   0     0    0     0 SW    0.0  0.0   0:00 usb-storage-0
  220 root       0   0     0    0     0 SW    0.0  0.0   0:00 scsi_eh_0
  234 root       0   0   648  644   528 S     0.0  0.1   0:00 syslogd
  238 root      -2   0  1344 1344  1264 S     0.0  0.2   0:00 watchdog
  243 root       0   0  1184 1176   456 S     0.0  0.2   0:00 klogd
  249 daemon     0   0   472  460   380 S     0.0  0.0   0:00 portmap

Major difference from older version of the patch is that top shows many 
processes with PRI 0.   I am not sure this is intended?

Thanks
Ed Tomlinson

On January 14, 2002 10:27 pm, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > On January 14, 2002 09:33 pm, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > > try to replace :
> > >
> > > PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE() and RT_PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE() with :
> > >
> > > #define NICE_TO_TIMESLICE(n)    (MIN_TIMESLICE + ((MAX_TIMESLICE - \
> > > 	MIN_TIMESLICE) * ((n) + 20)) / 39)
> > >
> > >
> > > NICE_TO_TIMESLICE(p->__nice)
> >
> > Not sure about this change.  gkrellm shows the compile getting about 40%
> > cpu.  Best result here seems to be with a larger range of timeslices.  ie
> > 1-15 ((10*HZ)/1000...) instead lets the compile get 80% of the cpu. 
> > wonder if this might be the way to go?