Slashdot Mirror
Significant Interactivity Boost in Linux Kernel
An anonymous reader writes "The Linux kernel team is at it again. Linux creator Linus Torvalds recently proposed a patch to offer interactive processes a boost, greatly benefiting the X desktop, as well as music and movie players. O(1) scheduler author Ingo Molnar merged Linus' patch into his own interactivity efforts, the end result nothing short of amazing... The upcoming 2.6 kernel is looking to be a desktop user's dream come true."
Actually, Linus's patch doesn't improve things any better than the scheduler patch it is Linus's patch combined with the scheduler patch that make it such a huge improvement. Again... its the COMBO patch that's arousing so much excitement.
Inconceivable!
There was a time when idiots did not walk the earth.
Linux still screams, I have a single server with two gig's of ram in it that runs 100 desktops (KDE) simultaneously. Yes it indeed takes alot of ram to run all of the new software. But for a machine that runs 2200 processes that is a impressive feat. It is a dual processor box and I have yet to see it reach over 30% processor utilization, a testament to the efficency of the kernel.
Software today requires a ton of ram, this has nothing to do with efficency of the linux kernel.
Along with this goes the idiots that think there is something wrong with X. I run this stuff in a corporate environment and X windows is linux's biggest strength. Remove X Windows and I would have to eliminate our corporate use of Linux.
Got Code?
IANAKH (Kernel Hacker), but here's my understanding of it.
The kernel development team are experimenting with heuristics to determine what processes are "interactive" and to determine "how interactive" those processes are.
An interactive process is a process which spends a portion of it's time sleeping, waiting for some kind of event, and then needs cpu time quickly after the event happens.
In this case the events are user input and screen redraw requests.
So, the trick is that interactive processes don't need any more CPU time than other processes, they just need it very quickly in response to requests. Low latency.
The question is, how do you determine what processare are interactive, and how interactive they are.
They have developed a system whereby there are effectively "interactivity points" that can be given to and taken away from a process.
The act of being woken up from sleeping by an event awards you interactivity points. The act of completely using up lots of timeslices (acting like a CPU-bound process) takes away interactivity points.
With Linus's new patch, once you've reached a certain threshold of interactivity points, some of your points start going to the process that woke you up. So, if an "interactive" process is always waking up in response to an event from a certain other process, than that other process is also awarded interactivity points.
In the end, your interactivity points are taken into account when choosing which processes get the CPU.
So, with this new code, processes which are "interactive" like your X11 apps get more of the cycles they need when they need them, decreasing their latency, and making them appear to work "better."
Justin Dubs
AmigaOS had something similar long before windows did, and amigaos was always a FAR more responsive system than windows, even from the first version.
AmigaOS and windows are both fairly similar in purpose and features tho, unix is more tailored to heavy duty server use, and thin clients, and ofcourse its far more powerfull and flexible. Thus you have a powerfull stable kernel, multiuser abilities, and features such as remote displays and authorization in X.
True, windows has tried to copy some of the age old unix features, but the basic design remains the same with extra things kludged in as an afterthought, and theres still no X style remote apps managed by your local wm, its whole desktop or nothing.
So while windows may be faster on a single machine, due to its simpler design, once you scale up.. to say one server serving hundreds of thin clients, unix really pulls into the lead.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
The interactivity boost has been in linux from Linux 0.99. This is a new class of boost, increasing interactive proccess priority and helper proccess priority too.
I have to say that KDE 3.1 is pretty snappy on my measly PII 400 with 320 MB of RAM under Gentoo Linux.
Saying KDE is slow is fudding.
word! AmigaOS had preemptive multitasking when most people were still using DOS on their PCs.
Now that you say it, I also realize that no Windows machine that I have been using has ever been as responsive as the old Amiga. Of course this is also a hardware issue: the Amiga had pretty strict timing for all I/O operations and memory access. The different subsystems had their own time slots in DMA, which was based on the video refresh timing. To a certain amount other subsystems, like the "Blitter", could steal DMA cycles from the CPU. There was even a chip, the "Copper", that could perform certain actions based on the position of the electron beam of the monitor. In my opinion, this chip was the key to most of the impressive effects that could be produced by the Amiga. OTOH, such a design is pretty hard to scale w.r.t. speed. In the end, the Amiga declined because Commodore neglected hardware development for too long.
Err, these are competing philosophies. You can't have both types of scheduling going on. Think about it: you have an interactive process which wants to use all the CPU all day long, and you have 6 server processes that want to have balanced scheduling for the clients they are handling. No matter what the scheduler chooses, it is being unfaithful to your bit for each process.
Check out the Solaris 9 Resource Manager, which can do both types. It allows you specify at a high level how much of the system's resources each group of processes gets under which conditions. You could say for example, group A (interactive) gets up to 100% unless group B (batch) needs some, in which case allow B up to 30% during the day and up to 70% at night. You could do this sort of thing in VMS over a decade ago. Also, even if the underlying OS doesn't give you the capability, an Oracle server running batch and interactive tasks can do it too.
Not at all. Indeed the lkml thread referenced was about getting good performance when there are some non-interactive processes such as gcc and some interactive ones such as MP3 players or the X server.
Suppose there are two CPU-bound processes marked as 'batch' and one process marked as 'interactive' which spends most of its time waiting for user input, but needs to respond quickly in short bursts when that input happens. The interactive process will get high priority and preempt the two batch processes when it needs to run; but when it goes back to sleep the two batch processes are scheduled with long timeslices.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
If anything, Linux is becoming the next MS
Now, *that*, I have to say, is bordering on the flamebaitish -- yes, I see what you're trying to say, but that's a kind of offensive way to phrase it.
Uh...check out Windows 2000 scheduling algos.
It's not exactly the same thing, though even Linus mentioned it (rather offensively, IMHO, to Ingo). Windows has a simple heavy priority boost it gives to the foreground app. That works fine if you're working in a fairly modal manner on a single-user system and you have a desktop-with-foreground-and-background paradigm as a fundamental part of the OS.
Linux's scheduler takes a somewhat more ambitious (granted, that probably means you can trick it more nastily) approach, partly because it has a more general, more difficult task. From what I can tell from skimming the conversation, Ingo's work is something more along the lines of advancing the traditional UNIX approach of "this app didn't use (or is tending not to use) its full timeslice, maybe because it's blocking on I/O, so give it higher priority to get another timeslice than an app that *did* use its full timeslice". He's just doing somewhat more sophisticated automatic classification of whether an app is "interactive" or not.
Yes, on the very surface, it's similar in goal. Make the task that the user is working with get more cycles at appropriate times to reduce latency of interface response. However, the approach is very much different, and the potential benefits are higher (since this automatically addresses a wide range of apps, not just making the foreground app peppier to keep scrolling snappy).
I *will* give you that this has little to do with open source. I suspect that there are plenty of closed-source systems that have tried to do more advanced classification of apps as interactive or noninteractive.
May we never see th