BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Posted Sep 8, 2009 6:39 UTC (Tue) by mingo (guest, #31122)
In reply to: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements by paragw
Parent article: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Did that ever work satisfactorily in practice though?

Yes. (See my other post about nice levels in this discussion.) If it does not it's a bug and needs to be reported to lkml.

There's also the /proc/sys/kernel/sched_latency_ns control in the upstream scheduler - that is global and if you set that to a very low value like 1 msec:

    echo 1000000 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_latency_ns

you'll get very fine-grained scheduling. This tunable has been upstream for 7-8 kernel releases already.

If it did why are people still cranking out different scheduler for desktops?

Primarily because it's fun to do. Also, in no small part because it's much easier to do than to fix an existing scheduler (with all its millions of current users and workloads) :-)

BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Posted Sep 8, 2009 12:30 UTC (Tue) by i3839 (guest, #31386) [Link] (6 responses)

Weird, I don't see /proc/sys/kernel/sched_latency_ns. After reading
the code it's clear it depends on CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG, any reason for
that? It has nothing to do with debugging and the code saved is minimal.

BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Posted Sep 8, 2009 12:37 UTC (Tue) by mingo (guest, #31122) [Link] (5 responses)

Please send a patch, i think we could make it generally available - and also the other granularity options i think. CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG default to y and most distros enable it. (alongside CONFIG_LATENCYTOP)

BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Posted Sep 9, 2009 8:42 UTC (Wed) by realnc (guest, #60393) [Link] (1 responses)

I've tried those tweaks. They don't really help much.

BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Posted Sep 10, 2009 9:53 UTC (Thu) by mingo (guest, #31122) [Link]

Thanks for testing it. It would be helpful (to keep reply latency low ;-) to move this to email and Cc: lkml.

You can test the latest upstream scheduler development tree via:

http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README

BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Posted Sep 9, 2009 11:50 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

I thought CONFIG_LATENCYTOP had horrible effects on the task_struct size and people were being encouraged to *disable* it as a result?

BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Posted Sep 10, 2009 9:56 UTC (Thu) by mingo (guest, #31122) [Link]

It shouldnt have too big cost unless you are really RAM constrained. (read running: a 32 MB system or so) So it's a nice tool if you want to see a general categorization of latency sources in your system.

latencytop is certainly useful enough so that several distributions enable it by default. It has size impact on task struct but otherwise the runtime cost should be near zero.

BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Posted Sep 10, 2009 19:35 UTC (Thu) by i3839 (guest, #31386) [Link]

I'll try to send a patch against tip later this week, not feeling too well at the moment.