[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH]O14int

    Con Kolivas wrote:

    >On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:15, Nick Piggin wrote:
    >>Con Kolivas wrote:
    >>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:44, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
    >>>>On Sat, 2003-08-09 at 11:04, Con Kolivas wrote:
    >>>>>On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 01:49, Con Kolivas wrote:
    >>>>>>More duck tape interactivity tweaks
    >>>>>>Wli pointed out an error in the nanosecond to jiffy conversion which
    >>>>>>may have been causing too easy to migrate tasks on smp (? performance
    >>>>>Looks like I broke SMP build with this. Will fix soon; don't bother
    >>>>>trying this on SMP yet.
    >>>>Not to be nasty or such, but all these patches have taken
    >>>>a very responsive HT box to one that have issues with multiple
    >>>>make -j10's running and random jerkyness.
    >>>A UP HT box you mean? That shouldn't be capable of running multiple make
    >>>-j10s without some noticable effect. Apart from looking impressive, there
    >>>is no point in having 30 cpu heavy things running with only 1 and a bit
    >>>processor and the machine being smooth as silk; the cpu heavy things will
    >>>just be unfairly starved in the interest of appearance (I can do that
    >>>easily enough). Please give details if there is a specific issue you
    >>>think I've broken or else I wont know about it.
    >>Yeah make -j10s won't be without impact, but I think for a lot of
    >>interactive stuff they don't need a lot of CPU, just to get it
    >>in a timely manner. And Martin did say it had been responsive.
    >>Sounds like in this case your changes are causing the interactive
    >>stuff to get less CPU or higher scheduling latency?
    >No, it sounds to me like things are expiring faster than on default. He didn't
    >say make -j10, it was multiple -j10s. This is one where you simply cannot let
    >the scheduler keep starving the make -j10s indefinitely for X; on a server or
    >multiuser box X will simply cause unfair starvation. I'm trying to find a
    >workaround for this without rewriting whole sections of the scheduler code,
    >but I'm just not sure I should be trying to optimise for a desktop that runs
    >loads >16 per cpu. (I'll keep trying though, but if there is no workaround
    >that remains fair it wont happen)

    Yep, I did see the multiple j10s ;)
    I wasn't aware that there was longer term starvation of gccs by X. I
    thought the scheduler had always been quite good at evening up the
    total CPU time used and a change you made had recently introduced a
    latency or interactiveness problem.

    But Martin didn't give a very detailed description of the problem,
    and no I definitely don't think you should be aiming at fixing
    his problem if it causes starvation or harms more common loads.

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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.028 / U:5.412 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site