lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series (Attn: Nick Piggin and others)
Con Kolivas wrote:
> Peter Williams writes:
>
>> Peter Williams wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>> William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 07:21:43PM -0700, spaminos-ker@yahoo.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not very familiar with all the parameters, so I just kept the
>>>>>> defaults
>>>>>> Anything else I could try?
>>>>>> Nicolas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No. It appeared that the SPA bits had sufficient fairness in them to
>>>>> pass this test but apparently not quite enough.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The interactive bonus may interfere with fairness (the throughput
>>>> bonus should actually help it for tasks with equal nice) so you
>>>> could try setting max_ia_bonus to zero (and possibly increasing
>>>> max_tpt_bonus). With "eb" mode this should still give good
>>>> interactive response but expect interactive response to suffer a
>>>> little in "pb" mode however renicing the X server to a negative
>>>> value should help.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I should also have mentioned that fiddling with the promotion
>>> interval may help.
>>
>>
>> Having reread your original e-mail I think that this problem is
>> probably being caused by the interactive bonus mechanism classifying
>> the httpd server threads as "interactive" threads and giving them a
>> bonus. But for some reason the daemon is not identified as
>> "interactive" meaning that it gets given a lower priority. In this
>> situation if there's a large number of httpd threads (even with
>> promotion) it could take quite a while for the daemon to get a look
>> in. Without promotion total starvation is even a possibility.
>>
>> Peter
>> PS For both "eb" and "pb" modes, max_io_bonus should be set to zero on
>> servers (where interactive responsiveness isn't an issue).
>> PPS For "sc" mode, try setting "interactive" to zero and "compute" to 1.
>
>
> No, compute should not be set to 1 for a server. It is reserved only for
> computational nodes, not regular servers. "Compute" will increase
> latency which is undersirable.

Sorry, my misunderstanding.

Peter
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce

-
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 14:05    [W:1.376 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site