Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:26:50 +1100 | From | Peter Williams <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix adverse effects of NFS client on interactive response |
| |
Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 08:36 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: > >>On Dec 21, 2005, at 08:21, Trond Myklebust wrote: >> >>>...and if you stick in a faster server?... >>> >>>There is _NO_ fundamental difference between NFS and a local >>>filesystem that warrants marking one as "interactive" and the other >>>as "noninteractive". What you are basically saying is that all I/O >>>should be marked as TASK_NONINTERACTIVE. >> >>Uhh, what part of disk/NFS/filesystem access is "interactive"? Which >>of those sleeps directly involve responding to user-interface >>events? _That_ is the whole point of the interactivity bonus, and >>precisely why Ingo introduced TASK_NONINTERACTIVE sleeps; so that >>processes that are not being useful for interactivity could be moved >>away from TASK_NONINTERRUPTABLE, with the end result that the X- >>server could be run at priority 0 without harming interactivity, even >>during heavy *disk*, *NFS*, and *network* activity. Admittedly, that >>may not be what some people want, but they're welcome to turn off the >>interactivity bonuses via some file in /proc (sorry, don't remember >>which at the moment). > > > Then have io_schedule() automatically set that flag, and convert NFS to > use io_schedule(), or something along those lines. I don't want a bunch > of RT-specific flags littering the NFS/RPC code.
This flag isn't RT-specific. It's used in the scheduling SCHED_NORMAL tasks and has no other semantic effects.
Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce - 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/
| |