Messages in this thread |  | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix adverse effects of NFS client on interactive response | Date | Sat, 7 Jan 2006 20:30:58 +1100 |
| |
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/
|  |