lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Problem with the O(1) scheduler in 2.4.19
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
>
> > In other words: Any nice-0 task that has been sleeping for two seconds
> > or more will be able to monololize the CPU for up to 0.7 seconds. Do
> > you agree that this is a problem, or am I being too narrow-minded? :-)
>
> well, 'monopolize' the CPU from CPU-hogs - yes. Take the CPU from other
> interactive tasks: no.

(Thanks Ingo for your quick answers!)

I don't mind that interactive processes can take the CPU from CPU hogs,
but I do think that there is room for classification improvements.

A few observations (with suggested solutions):

1. The nice levels are not symmetric. Compared to a nice 0 process, a
nice 19 process will get 6% CPU, but compared to a nice -20 process, a
nice 0 process will get 33 % CPU. This can be solved by scaling the
conversion from nice level to priority in a different way. The
drawback of this is shorter time slices for nice 0 processes.

2. Nice -20 is really impotent. In addition to the point above, the
interactive classification stuff is what makes it really impotent.
That a nice -20 process loses 0.7 seconds to a nice 0 task says it all.
How about making -20 processes interactive unconditionally?

3. More than 90% of all tasks in a system are classified as interactive at
any given time (since they are sleeping). For example all cron jobs
are classified as interactive, which sounds really strange. IMHO, it's
a good example of a non-interactive background job. (I'll run my crond
at nice 19 for now.)

I'm curious, why are you using the process average sleep time to
determine interactiveness and not the presense of prematurely abandoned
timeslices?

4. Using SCHED_RR is one way out, but I suspect that the busy-loop
nanosleep implementation for "realtime" processes will lock up the
machine in my case. I suggest that the 2 ms limit is removed. It can
be done in userspace as a gettimeofday loop for applications which
care.

I'll continue thinking about this to see if I can come up with something
constructive, but it would be extremely valuable to get your view since
you are the expert and you have been working on this for a long time.

/Tobias

-
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: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.059 / U:0.892 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site