lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity
Date
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:21, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >I've already posted a better solution in O13.1
>
> No, this still special-cases the uninterruptible sleep. Why is this
> needed? What is being worked around? There is probably a way to
> attack the cause of the problem.

Sure I'm open to any and all ideas. Cpu hogs occasionally do significant I/O.
Up until that time they have been only losing sleep_avg as they have spent no
time sleeping; and this is what gives them a lower dynamic priority. During
uninterruptible sleep all of a sudden they are seen as sleeping even though
they are cpu hogs waiting on I/O. Witness the old standard, a kernel compile.
The very first time you launch a make -j something, the higher the something,
the longer all the jobs wait on I/O, the better the dynamic priority they
get, which they shouldn't.

No, this is not just a "fix the scheduler so you don't feel -j kernel
compiles" as it happens with any cpu hog starving other tasks, and the longer
the cpu hogs wait on I/O the worse it is. This change causes a _massive_
improvement for that test case which usually brings the machine to a
standstill the size of which is dependent on the number of cpu hogs and the
size of their I/O wait. I don't think the latest incarnation should be a
problem. In my limited testing I've not found any difference in throughput
but I don't have a major testbed at my disposal, nor time to use one if it
was offered which is why I requested more testing.

Thoughts?

Con

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.155 / U:0.636 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site