lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [SCHED] wrong priority calc - SIMPLE test case
At 04:11 PM 12/31/2005 +0100, Paolo Ornati wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:13:24 +0100
>Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > Ingo seems to have done something in 2.6.15-rc7-rt1 which defeats your
> > little proggy. Taking a quick peek at the rt scheduler changes, nothing
> > poked me in the eye, but by golly, I can't get this kernel to act up,
> > whereas 2.6.14-virgin does.
>
>Ok, I've sucessfully booted 2.6.15-rc7-rt1 (I think that I was
>having troubles with Thread Softirqs and/or Thread Hardirqs).
>
>First thing: I've preemption disabled, but it shouldn't matter too much
>since we are talking about priority calculation...

Mine is fully preemptible.

>1) My program isn't defeated at all. If I start it with the same args
>of the previous examples it "seems" defeated, but it isn't.
>
>Lowering the "cpu burn argument" I can reproduce the problem again:
>
>"./a.out 200 & ./a.out 333"
>
> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> 5607 paolo 15 0 2396 320 252 R 56.1 0.1 0:06.79 a.out
> 5606 paolo 15 0 2396 324 252 R 38.7 0.1 0:04.55 a.out
> 1 root 16 0 2556 552 468 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.28 init

Strange. Using the exact same arguments, I do see some odd bouncing up to
high priorities, but they spend the vast majority of their time down at 25.

-Mike

-
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: 2005-12-31 17:40    [W:0.120 / U:4.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site