[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
    On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:

    > * 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.)

    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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-04-24 09:25    [W:0.020 / U:18.552 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site