[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity

Con Kolivas wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:11, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>Con Kolivas wrote:
>>>Reverted the child penalty to 95 as new changes help this from hurting
>>>Changed the logic behind loss of interactive credits to those that burn
>>>off all their sleep_avg
>>>Now all tasks get proportionately more sleep as their relative bonus drops
>>>off. This has the effect of detecting a change from a cpu burner to an
>>>interactive task more rapidly as in O10.
>>>The _major_ change in this patch is that tasks on uninterruptible sleep do
>>>not earn any sleep avg during that sleep; it is not voluntary sleep so
>>>they should not get it. This has the effect of stopping cpu hogs from
>>>gaining dynamic priority during periods of heavy I/O. Very good for the
>>>jerks you may see in X or audio skips when you start a whole swag of disk
>>>intensive cpu hogs (eg make -j large number). I've simply dropped all
>>>their sleep_avg, but weighting it may be more appropriate. This has the
>>>side effect that pure disk tasks (eg cp) have relatively low priority
>>>which is why weighting may be better. We shall see.
>>I don't think this is a good idea. Uninterruptible does not mean its
>>not a voluntary sleep. Its more to do with how a syscall is implemented.
>>I don't think it should be treated any differently to any other type of
>>Any task which calls schedule in kernel context is sleeping volintarily
>>- if implicity due to having called a blocking syscall.
>>>Please test this one extensively. It should _not_ affect I/O throughput
>>>per se, but I'd like to see some of the I/O benchmarks on this. I do not
>>>want to have detrimental effects elsewhere.
>>Well the reason it can affect IO thoughput is for example when there is
>>an IO bound process and a CPU hog on the same processor: the longer the
>>IO process has to wait (after being woken) before being run, the more
>>chance the disk will fall idle for a longer period. And of course the
>>CPU uncontended case is somewhat uninteresting when it comes to a CPU
>I've already posted a better solution in O13.1

No, this still special-cases the uninterruptible sleep. Why is this
needed? What is being worked around? There is probably a way to
attack the cause of the problem.

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: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.181 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site