lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 1 Aug 2007 14:23:08 +0200
FromIngo Molnar <>
SubjectRe: CFS review
* Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > > [...] e.g. in this example there are three tasks that run only for 
> > > about 1ms every 3ms, but they get far more time than should have 
> > > gotten fairly:
> > > 
> > >  4544 roman     20   0  1796  520  432 S 32.1  0.4   0:21.08 lt
> > >  4545 roman     20   0  1796  344  256 R 32.1  0.3   0:21.07 lt
> > >  4546 roman     20   0  1796  344  256 R 31.7  0.3   0:21.07 lt
> > >  4547 roman     20   0  1532  272  216 R  3.3  0.2   0:01.94 l
> > 
> > Mike and me have managed to reproduce similarly looking 'top' output, 
> > but it takes some effort: we had to deliberately run a non-TSC 
> > sched_clock(), CONFIG_HZ=100, !CONFIG_NO_HZ and !CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS.
> 
> I used my old laptop for these tests, where tsc is indeed disabled due 
> to instability. Otherwise the kernel was configured with 
> CONFIG_HZ=1000.

please send all the debug info and source code we asked for - thanks!

	Ingo
-
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: 2007-08-01 14:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2008