![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Saturday 07 January 2006 16:27, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > Personally, I think that all TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE sleeps should be > > treated as non interactive rather than just be heavily discounted (and > > that TASK_NONINTERACTIVE shouldn't be needed in conjunction with it) BUT > > I may be wrong especially w.r.t. media streamers such as audio and video > > players and the mechanisms they use to do sleeps between cpu bursts. > > Try it, you won't like it. When I first examined sleep_avg woes, my > reaction was to nuke uninterruptible sleep too... boy did that ever _suck_ > :) Glad you've seen why I put the uninterruptible sleep logic in there. In essence this is why the NFS client interactive case is not as nice - the NFS code doesn't do "work on behalf of" a cpu hog with the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state. The uninterruptible sleep detection logic made a massive difference to interactivity when cpu bound tasks do disk I/O. Cheers, 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: 2006-01-07 09:34 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||