[lkml]   [1998]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] idle_task was wasting a lot of CPU
    On Fri, 27 Nov 1998, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > On Fri, 27 Nov 1998, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > >
    > > The first pending patch is a fix for a bug I discovered last week. The
    > > patch avoid the idle task to continue to run if an useful process is being
    > > wakenup. It make a _big_ difference. Compiling the kernel a `xload' show
    > > that the CPU is used at 100% all the time (5/10% kernel and the other is
    > > gcc). Without this patch xload is far from doing a straight line in the
    > > high part of the graph.
    > Hmm.. The idle tasks _should_ have a negative counter value all the time,
    > at least they used to. That's the proper fix, to make sure that the
    > counter value is never positive in the first place.
    > I wonder when that broke?

    I thought about that too. It process.c we used to mark
    the counter of each idle task to -100 and it had gone
    without a reason.

    Putting it back there won't really work since, on each
    timer interrupt, counter will be reset to 0. IMHO the
    real fix is to mark the idle task with SCHED_YIELD.
    This will work because we never mangle the idle task
    with goodness()... (we don't, do we?)


    Rik -- now completely used to dvorak kbd layout...
    | Linux memory management tour guide. |
    | Scouting Vries cubscout leader. |

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.021 / U:3.920 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site