Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RIFS-ES Linux Kernel Scheduler Released

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by 3766691 View Post
    OK Now I totally disabled cgroups and non-preemptible and voluntary-sleep preemption model, only preemptible option is left.Tickless is also disabled. These are the feature that desktop users won't care about
    I DO care about tickless :P

    best compromise about interactivity, smoothness and energy savings

    otherwise I could also use the rt-kernel


    or aren't there that much energy savings with tickless enabled ?

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
      I DO care about tickless :P

      best compromise about interactivity, smoothness and energy savings

      otherwise I could also use the rt-kernel


      or aren't there that much energy savings with tickless enabled ?
      It saves enengy, yes. But tickless can cause unreliable behavior and having constant rate of clock interrupt is improtant for RIFS. Included RIFS V2, and -ES

      Comment


      • #43
        @kernelOfTruth,
        you could set the ticks from 1000hz down to 300hz, which will have 70percent of the energy savings of tickless.

        @Chen,
        aren't cgroups important for the coming systemd?
        If so, then the most important feature of a new coming version of RIFS !

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by ulenrich View Post
          @kernelOfTruth,
          you could set the ticks from 1000hz down to 300hz, which will have 70percent of the energy savings of tickless.

          @Chen,
          aren't cgroups important for the coming systemd?
          If so, then the most important feature of a new coming version of RIFS !
          Now I don't have plan to make it support to cgroup yet becauae there is no need to do it for desktop yet. I dont want to add a feature that bloat my code and make no advantage to desktop.

          I do not recommend using tickless because the algorithm RIFS-ES used works bad with tickless

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by ulenrich View Post
            @kernelOfTruth,
            you could set the ticks from 1000hz down to 300hz, which will have 70percent of the energy savings of tickless.

            @Chen,
            aren't cgroups important for the coming systemd?
            If so, then the most important feature of a new coming version of RIFS !
            If you have time could you also test RIFS-V2-Bugfix2-kernel3.4.x:
            http://rifs-scheduler.googlecode.com...x2-kernel3.4.x

            Thanks. I can't test because I can't find the difference between them.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by ulenrich View Post
              @kernelOfTruth,
              you could set the ticks from 1000hz down to 300hz, which will have 70percent of the energy savings of tickless.

              @Chen,
              aren't cgroups important for the coming systemd?
              If so, then the most important feature of a new coming version of RIFS !
              thanks - yes, I did in the past with CFS but that caused (if I remember correctly) less smooth/less reactive desktop for me

              so I bumped it up to 1000 Hz


              will try it with 300 Hz + RIFS-ES low-spec now + NOHZ disabled

              hopefully that works out well

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by 3766691 View Post
                If you have time could you also test RIFS-V2-Bugfix2-kernel3.4.x:
                http://rifs-scheduler.googlecode.com...x2-kernel3.4.x
                Thanks. I can't test because I can't find the difference between them.
                Chen,
                could you give me a more detailed rationale, why
                - I should use an older branch of code
                - what is different in principle to RIFS-ES
                - I could have more success in testing than you yourself

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by ulenrich View Post
                  Chen,
                  could you give me a more detailed rationale, why
                  - I should use an older branch of code
                  - what is different in principle to RIFS-ES
                  - I could have more success in testing than you yourself
                  1.I have to examine that what RIFS-ES really improved.
                  2.-ES has different method to decide whether we should increase the priority of a sleeper.And these idea is from the clasaic Unix scheduler and I have enhanced it.
                  4.I am the author of these 2 scheduler and my feeling might be a bit subjective.Also if the others have claimed that it is good , it will be more powerful than my words.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    You didnt answer what RIFS-v2 is about in more detail!

                    I am not a big tester. I just have a good 'feeling':

                    BFS feels a bit faster when low load (only video using kaffeine)
                    RIFS-ES feels the same if low load or high load (compile + video)

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by 3766691 View Post
                      Please disable them. Yes desktop doesn't need these

                      EDIT 2:
                      Now I post a new one.
                      I know that disabling them fixes the errors, I just wanted to tell you so you can fix it in source.

                      But now I tried to compile it on a netbook with Intel Atom CPU:

                      block/built-in.o: In function `__blk_complete_request':
                      (.text+0x8345): undefined reference to `cpus_share_cache'

                      This time I don't know how to fix it.

                      //EDIT: Fixed by changing

                      shared = cpus_share_cache(cpu, ccpu);
                      to

                      shared = true; // Hardcoded for HT, else: cpus_share_cache(cpu, ccpu);

                      in block/blk-softirq.c
                      This code is for HyperThreading CPUs only and may fail on dual (or more) core CPUs. Also I couldn't test it yet as the netbook is slow and I have to do a lot more before I'm able to reboot.
                      Last edited by V10lator; 06-23-2012, 10:23 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X