[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44

    * Gene Heskett <> wrote:

    > > Gene has done some testing under CFS with X reniced to +10 and the
    > > desktop still worked smoothly for him.
    > As a data point here, and probably nothing to do with X, but I did
    > manage to lock it up, solid, reset button time tonight, by wanting
    > 'smart' to get done with an update session after amanda had started.
    > I took both smart processes I could see in htop all the way to -19,
    > but when it was about done about 3 minutes later, everything came to
    > an instant, frozen, reset button required lockup. I should have
    > stopped at -17 I guess. :(

    yeah, i guess this has little to do with X. I think in your scenario it
    might have been smarter to either stop, or to renice the workloads that
    took away CPU power from others to _positive_ nice levels. Negative nice
    levels can indeed be dangerous.

    (Btw., to protect against such mishaps in the future i have changed the
    SysRq-N [SysRq-Nice] implementation in my tree to not only change
    real-time tasks to SCHED_OTHER, but to also renice negative nice levels
    back to 0 - this will show up in -v6. That way you'd only have had to
    hit SysRq-N to get the system out of the wedge.)

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-04-24 09:11    [W:0.022 / U:13.256 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site