Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [PATCH 0/9] CPU controller | Date | Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:11:36 +1000 |
| |
On Friday 28 April 2006 19:29, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 16:56 +0900, MAEDA Naoaki wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:41:09 +0200 > > > > Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 16:26 +0900, MAEDA Naoaki wrote: > > > > On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:59:49 +0200 > > > > > > > > Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > > You simply cannot ignore interactive tasks. At the very least, you > > > > > have to disallow requeue if the resource limit has been exceeded, > > > > > otherwise, this patch set is non-functional. > > > > > > > > It can be easily implemented on top of the current code. Do you know > > > > a good sample program that is judged as interactive but consumes lots > > > > of cpu? > > > > > > X sometimes, Mozilla sometimes,... KDE konsole when scrolling,... > > > anything that on average sleeps more than roughly 5% of it's slice can > > > starve you to death either alone, or (worse) with peers. > > > > They are true interactive tasks, aren't they? > > Oh! I should say "that is not interactive, but judged as interactive > > and consumes lots of cpu". > > Why do you care? There is only one thing that matters, and that is the > fact that cpu can be used and remain utterly uncontrolled. This renders > your system non-functional for resource management. Period. All stop.
I agree with Mike here. It's either global resource management or it isn't. If one user is using all interactive tasks and the other user none it's unfair resource management.
-- -ck - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |