RIFS-ES Linux Kernel Scheduler Released

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3766691

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kernelOfTruth

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

@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 !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ulenrich

@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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ulenrich

@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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ulenrich

@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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3766691

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ulenrich

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.

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3766691

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.