Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:45:53 -0700 (PDT) | | From | David Lang <> | | Subject | Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44 |
| |
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@gmail.com> 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.)
if you are trying to unwedge a system it may be a good idea to renice all tasks to 0, it could be that a task at +19 is holding a lock that something else is waiting for.
David Lang - 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/
|  |