[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity
    Quoting Nick Piggin <>:

    > Con Kolivas wrote:
    > >Quoting Nick Piggin <>:
    > >
    > >
    > >>
    > >>Con Kolivas wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:21, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>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.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>Footnote: I was thinking of using this to also _elevate_ the dynamic
    > >>>
    > >>priority
    > >>
    > >>>of tasks waking from interruptible sleep as well which may help
    > throughput.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>Con, an uninterruptible sleep is one which is not be woken by a signal,
    > >>an interruptible sleep is one which is. There is no other connotation.
    > >>What happens when read/write syscalls are changed to be interruptible?
    > >>I'm not saying this will happen... but come to think of it, NFS probably
    > >>has interruptible read/write.
    > >>
    > >>In short: make the same policy for an interruptible and an uninterruptible
    > >>sleep.
    > >>
    > >
    > >That's the policy that has always existed...
    > >
    > >Interesting that I have only seen the desired effect and haven't noticed any
    > >side effect from this change so far. I'll keep experimenting as much as
    > >possible (as if I wasn't going to) and see what the testers find as well.
    > >
    > Oh, I'm not saying that your change is outright wrong, on the contrary I'd
    > say you have a better feel for what is needed than I do, but if you are
    > finding
    > that the uninterruptible sleep case needs some tweaking then the same tweak
    > should be applied to all sleep cases. If there really is a difference,
    > then its
    > just a fluke that the sleep paths in question use the type of sleep you are
    > testing for, and nothing more profound than that.

    Ah I see. It was from my observations of the behaviour of tasks in D that
    found it was the period spent in D that was leading to unfairness. The same
    tweak can't be applied to the rest of the sleeps because that inactivates
    everything. So it is a fluke that the thing I'm trying to penalise is what
    tasks in uninterruptible sleep do, but it is by backward observation of D
    tasks, not random chance.

    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:0.036 / U:6.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site