Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 146

Thread: The v2 Rotary Interactivity Favor Scheduler

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default

    I decided to test RIFS v2, v3-RC1, v3-RC2, and CFS 3.4-rt.
    All three of RIFS get high latency on a standard cyclictest run (50us instead of the average 1 on CFS or 0 on BFS or CFS+RT-preempt).
    Using 'latt stress -c 64', v3-RC2 hangs the machine completely (just like BFS), v3-RC1 nearly does so and if you're lucky you can kill it.
    Wakeup latencies (according to latt) on RC2 are in the 500us range average.

    v2 works as advertised, and up to 128 threads will keep CPU bound tasks going fine, and latt reports wakeup latencies in the 3us range for 32 threads, but 1028 us for 64. Notably, I/O seems to get starved, however. They are entirely inconsistent, however.

    As far as miscellaneous problems... On v2, results with latt are inconsistent in returning. Sometimes it'll return nothing at all. v3-RC2 occasionally won't boot because the storage subsystem hasn't initialized by the time it tries to boot (haven't seen that before, and only sometimes on v3-RC2).
    However, kernel compile times on v2 (make -j4) seem to take much, much longer than with anything else. On the order of 3 times longer.

    All of this is in X11 and with r600g, with a Touhou 3D game (via wine) running concurrently with the tests to ensure things are really interactive and that audio works correctly.

    3.4-rt (CFS) seems to work correctly anywhere from -c1 to -c256, with latt-reported wakeups in the 3 average, 10 max for 64 stress processes. 66 average, 818 max for 256 stress processes. CFS-rt doesn't starve I/O.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    GuangDong,China
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zephiris View Post
    I decided to test RIFS v2, v3-RC1, v3-RC2, and CFS 3.4-rt.
    All three of RIFS get high latency on a standard cyclictest run (50us instead of the average 1 on CFS or 0 on BFS or CFS+RT-preempt).
    Using 'latt stress -c 64', v3-RC2 hangs the machine completely (just like BFS), v3-RC1 nearly does so and if you're lucky you can kill it.
    Wakeup latencies (according to latt) on RC2 are in the 500us range average.

    v2 works as advertised, and up to 128 threads will keep CPU bound tasks going fine, and latt reports wakeup latencies in the 3us range for 32 threads, but 1028 us for 64. Notably, I/O seems to get starved, however. They are entirely inconsistent, however.

    As far as miscellaneous problems... On v2, results with latt are inconsistent in returning. Sometimes it'll return nothing at all. v3-RC2 occasionally won't boot because the storage subsystem hasn't initialized by the time it tries to boot (haven't seen that before, and only sometimes on v3-RC2).
    However, kernel compile times on v2 (make -j4) seem to take much, much longer than with anything else. On the order of 3 times longer.

    All of this is in X11 and with r600g, with a Touhou 3D game (via wine) running concurrently with the tests to ensure things are really interactive and that audio works correctly.

    3.4-rt (CFS) seems to work correctly anywhere from -c1 to -c256, with latt-reported wakeups in the 3 average, 10 max for 64 stress processes. 66 average, 818 max for 256 stress processes. CFS-rt doesn't starve I/O.
    .
    It is quite interesting. Could you send me your .config to my email? Thank you for your work
    Maybe it is better to change do-while to jump instructions.Optimising is needed otherwise miscaching will happen frequently
    Last edited by 3766691; 05-22-2012 at 06:20 AM.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    GuangDong,China
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elmariachi View Post
    Could you make the patch version agnostic? It works with 3.3.6 without a hitch (so far), and having to manually find&replace the version everytime is time-consuming. So far all is fine for my day-to-day usage.
    Anyway, rifs v3 will use the algorithm v2 used, there will be a little change. Also, it may be worth to try to hook the mouse or keyboard driver to identify whether it is a user-interactive task. If it is, the priority of it will become RR(It seems ugly but be worth to try.)

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    32

    Default

    hehe giving RR to mouse and keyboard isn't a very good thing
    how do you find if they user-interactive?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    GuangDong,China
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elmariachi View Post
    hehe giving RR to mouse and keyboard isn't a very good thing
    how do you find if they user-interactive?
    Hook the driver by a little patch
    Also now RIFS doesnt do that(it seems a bit ugly)

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    32

    Default

    I don't want to sound too critical Chen, but your google code page is starting to become a mess :/ if you want people to contribute/follow your project more closely why not use a git repo (like github)? Or at least come up with a better naming scheme for your versions, I already lost track of what's working and what isn't :s

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    GuangDong,China
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elmariachi View Post
    I don't want to sound too critical Chen, but your google code page is starting to become a mess :/ if you want people to contribute/follow your project more closely why not use a git repo (like github)? Or at least come up with a better naming scheme for your versions, I already lost track of what's working and what isn't :s
    When i have time i will move them to a svn server.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    GuangDong,China
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zephiris View Post
    I decided to test RIFS v2, v3-RC1, v3-RC2, and CFS 3.4-rt.
    All three of RIFS get high latency on a standard cyclictest run (50us instead of the average 1 on CFS or 0 on BFS or CFS+RT-preempt).
    Using 'latt stress -c 64', v3-RC2 hangs the machine completely (just like BFS), v3-RC1 nearly does so and if you're lucky you can kill it.
    Wakeup latencies (according to latt) on RC2 are in the 500us range average.

    v2 works as advertised, and up to 128 threads will keep CPU bound tasks going fine, and latt reports wakeup latencies in the 3us range for 32 threads, but 1028 us for 64. Notably, I/O seems to get starved, however. They are entirely inconsistent, however.

    As far as miscellaneous problems... On v2, results with latt are inconsistent in returning. Sometimes it'll return nothing at all. v3-RC2 occasionally won't boot because the storage subsystem hasn't initialized by the time it tries to boot (haven't seen that before, and only sometimes on v3-RC2).
    However, kernel compile times on v2 (make -j4) seem to take much, much longer than with anything else. On the order of 3 times longer.

    All of this is in X11 and with r600g, with a Touhou 3D game (via wine) running concurrently with the tests to ensure things are really interactive and that audio works correctly.

    3.4-rt (CFS) seems to work correctly anywhere from -c1 to -c256, with latt-reported wakeups in the 3 average, 10 max for 64 stress processes. 66 average, 818 max for 256 stress processes. CFS-rt doesn't starve I/O.
    The problem is cause by a bug in these 3 scheduler. I have fixed it but i havent post it yet.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    GuangDong,China
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elmariachi View Post
    I don't want to sound too critical Chen, but your google code page is starting to become a mess :/ if you want people to contribute/follow your project more closely why not use a git repo (like github)? Or at least come up with a better naming scheme for your versions, I already lost track of what's working and what isn't :s
    Sorry for it. I will tidy it.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3766691 View Post
    When i have time i will move them to a svn server.
    Please move to git instead, noone wants to use svn anymore.
    ## VGA ##
    AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
    Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •