Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix adverse effects of NFS client on interactive response | | From | Trond Myklebust <> | | Date | Wed, 21 Dec 2005 08:21:20 -0500 |
| |
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 17:32 +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
> > Sorry. That theory is just plain wrong. ALL of those case _ARE_ > > interactive sleeps. > > It's not a theory. It's a result of observing a -j 16 build with the > sources on an NFS mounted file system with top with and without the > patches and comparing that with the same builds with the sources on a > local file system. Without the patches the tasks in the kernel build > all get the same dynamic priority as the X server and other interactive > programs when the sources are on an NFS mounted file system. With the > patches they generally have dynamic priorities between 6 to 10 higher > than the X server and other interactive programs.
...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.
Cheers, Trond
- 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/
|  |