Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 150

Thread: RIFS-ES Linux Kernel Scheduler Released

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Quote 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 ?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    GuangDong,China
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote 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

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    56

    Default

    @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 !

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    GuangDong,China
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote 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

  5. #45
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    GuangDong,China
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Quote 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

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    56

    Default

    Quote 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

  8. #48
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    GuangDong,China
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    56

    Default

    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)

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    350

    Default

    Quote 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 TAXI; 06-23-2012 at 10:23 AM.

Posting Permissions

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