[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: Fix adverse effects of NFS client on interactive response
On Saturday 07 January 2006 16:27, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Personally, I think that all TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE sleeps should be
> > treated as non interactive rather than just be heavily discounted (and
> > that TASK_NONINTERACTIVE shouldn't be needed in conjunction with it) BUT
> > I may be wrong especially w.r.t. media streamers such as audio and video
> > players and the mechanisms they use to do sleeps between cpu bursts.
> Try it, you won't like it. When I first examined sleep_avg woes, my
> reaction was to nuke uninterruptible sleep too... boy did that ever _suck_
> :)

Glad you've seen why I put the uninterruptible sleep logic in there. In
essence this is why the NFS client interactive case is not as nice - the NFS
code doesn't do "work on behalf of" a cpu hog with the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
state. The uninterruptible sleep detection logic made a massive difference to
interactivity when cpu bound tasks do disk I/O.

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: 2006-01-07 10:34    [W:0.077 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site