Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The v2 Rotary Interactivity Favor Scheduler
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
Could you turn it off and re-compile the kernel ?
Thanks.
As I say
The algorithm of RIFS-ES can be affected by variable clock interrupt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3766691 View PostCONFIG_NO_HZ=y
Could you turn it off and re-compile the kernel ?
Thanks.
As I say
The algorithm of RIFS-ES can be affected by variable clock interrupt.
sure, will do
I read that there isn't that much of more power consumption:
Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite
where others claim 10-20% more consumption:
now raw performance and efficiency counts (in terms of workflow) so I'll revert to tickless or more energy-friendly settings in 1-2 weeks ^^
Comment
-
well, that massively helped
pulseaudio now continually seems to stay at 1% cpu load instead of pegging around 100-300%
it could have been partly an issue caused by configuration but I believe it's partly also due to tickless:
Originally posted by diff config-3.4-geek_rifs_v2 config-3.4-geek_RIFS_ES-no-tickless_less-debug3c3
< # Linux/x86_64 3.4.2-geek Kernel Configuration
---
> # Linux/x86_64 3.4.2-geek_btrfs+_libata_RIFS-ES-v1-low-spec Kernel Configuration
113d112
< CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ=y
319c318
< CONFIG_NO_HZ=y
---
> # CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set
326a326
> CONFIG_SCHED_OMIT_FRAME_POINTER=y
553d552
< CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_GOV_MENU=y
2113a2113
> # CONFIG_NTP_PPS is not set
3754,3755c3754
< CONFIG_UNWIND_INFO=y
< CONFIG_STACK_UNWIND=y
---
> # CONFIG_UNWIND_INFO is not set
3759c3758
< CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_VERBOSE=y
---
> # CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_VERBOSE is not set
it's still for 1-2 seconds stalling when it's heavily writing even though the dirty values are low as "1" - but that obviously might be caused by either luks/device-mapper or the filesystems and the other subsystems (VFS, writeback, etc.) involved
last kernel that - in my opinion - had really great writeback performance was 2.6.34, dunno
will stay on this kernel now ...
thanks !Last edited by kernelOfTruth; 23 June 2012, 05:38 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Postsure, will do
I read that there isn't that much of more power consumption:
Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite
where others claim 10-20% more consumption:
now raw performance and efficiency counts (in terms of workflow) so I'll revert to tickless or more energy-friendly settings in 1-2 weeks ^^
Comment
-
Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Postwell, that massively helped
pulseaudio now continually seems to stay at 1% cpu load instead of pegging around 100-300%
it could have been partly an issue caused by configuration but I believe it's partly also due to tickless:
it's still for 1-2 seconds stalling when it's heavily writing even though the dirty values are low as "1" - but that obviously might be caused by either luks/device-mapper or the filesystems and the other subsystems (VFS, writeback, etc.) involved
last kernel that - in my opinion - had really great writeback performance was 2.6.34, dunno
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3766691 View PostHow about the subjective feeling between RIFS and RIFS-ES-Low-Spec ?
otherwise it would be RIFS + tickless vs. RIFS-ES-low-spec + NOHZ
and that wouldn't be fair
in my opinion RIFS was more consistent but less fluid whereas RIFS-ES-low-spec was more smooth but at times also less smooth
this could be a whole different story with tickless disabled
Comment
-
Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Postlike I wrote - I need that box for production - so I won't compile another RIFS with NOHZ right now (next week or after that at earliest)
otherwise it would be RIFS + tickless vs. RIFS-ES-low-spec + NOHZ
and that wouldn't be fair
in my opinion RIFS was more consistent but less fluid whereas RIFS-ES-low-spec was more smooth but at times also less smooth
this could be a whole different story with tickless disabled
Actually I can't feel difference between RIFS and -ES but with benchmark data -ES would gain more improvement
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3766691 View PostNOHZ and tickless are the same things.
Actually I can't feel difference between RIFS and -ES but with benchmark data -ES would gain more improvement
yeah, the differences are very subtle but under load RIFS-ES probably can really shine and show its strength
RIFS/-ES needs more testers and experiences to further improve and become even better
anyone ?
edit:
it's actually ridiculous how almost every app seemed to hog the cpu with NOHZ=y
(between 50-100% per app)
it might have been issues with the kernel over longer runtime - I'll see at the end of the time if it shows the same behavior or if it stays that calm with 0-1%Last edited by kernelOfTruth; 23 June 2012, 05:56 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Postah yes - I actually meant # NOHZ is not set
yeah, the differences are very subtle but under load RIFS-ES probably can really shine and show its strength
RIFS/-ES needs more testers and experiences to further improve and become even better
Now the last things is we have to make it into modular.(Very last things) After this RIFS/-ES will support CGroups.
RIFS/-ES have beaten BFS but now we have to promote it more. If Gentoo developer can help me to promote I will say a big THANKS.
it might have been issues with the kernel over longer runtime - I'll see at the end of the time if it shows the same behavior or if it stays that calm with 0-1%
Comment
Comment