lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: Fix adverse effects of NFS client on interactive response
Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:10, Horst von Brand wrote:
>
>> Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 21, 2005, at 08:21, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...and if you stick in a faster server?...
>>>> There is _NO_ fundamental difference between NFS and a local
>>>> filesystem that warrants marking one as "interactive" and the other
>>>> as "noninteractive". What you are basically saying is that all I/O
>>>> should be marked as TASK_NONINTERACTIVE.
>>>
>>>
>>> Uhh, what part of disk/NFS/filesystem access is "interactive"?
>>> Which of those sleeps directly involve responding to user- interface
>>> events?
>>
>>
>> And if it is a user waiting for the data to display? Can't
>> distinguish that so easily from the compiler waiting for something to
>> do...
>
>
> No, but in that case the program probably _already_ has some
> interactivity bonus just from user interaction.

And if it doesn't then it is (by definition) not interactive. :-)

As you imply, this change is targetting those tasks whose ONLY
interruptible sleeps are due to NFS use.

> On the other hand, UI
> programming guidelines say that any task which might take more than a
> half-second or so should not be run in the event loop, but in a
> separate thread (either a drawing thread or similar). In that case,
> your event loop thread is the one with the interactivity bonus, and the
> others are just data processing threads (like the compile you have
> running in the background or the webserver responding to HTTP
> requests), that the user would need to manually arbitrate between with
> nice levels.
>
> The whole point of the interactivity bonus was that processes that
> follow the cycle <waiting-for-input> => <respond-to-input-for-less-
> than-time-quantum> => <waiting-for-input> would get a boost; things
> like dragging a window or handling mouse or keyboard events should
> happen within a small number of milliseconds, whereas background tasks
> really _don't_ care if they are delayed running their time quantum by
> 400ms, as long as they get their full quantum during each cycle.

Exactly. It's all about latency and doesn't really effect the
allocation of CPU resources according to niceness as that is handled via
differential time slice allocations.

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: 2005-12-22 00:01    [W:0.085 / U:1.276 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site