Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:44:55 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [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 >>>>>> >>>>>s/duck/duct >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Wli pointed out an error in the nanosecond to jiffy conversion which >>>>>>may have been causing too easy to migrate tasks on smp (? performance >>>>>>change). >>>>>> >>>>>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? >> > >Sigh.., > >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 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/
| |