lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Subjectinteractive task starvation
From
Date
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 10:06 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> yep, i think that's a good idea. In the worst case the starvation
> timeout should kick in.

(I didn't want to hijack that thread ergo name change)

Speaking of the starvation timeout...

I'm beginning to wonder if it might not be a good idea to always have an
expired_timestamp to ensure that there is a limit to how long
interactive tasks can starve _each other_. Yesterday, I ran some tests
with apache, and ended up waiting for over 3 minutes for a netstat|
grep :81|wc -l to finish when competing with 10 copies of httpd. The
problem with the expired_timestamp is that if there is nobody already
expired, and if no non-interactive task exists, there's certainly no
expired_timestamp, there's no starvation limit.

There are other ways to cure 'interactive starvation', but forcing an
array switch if a non-interactive task hasn't run for pick-a-number time
is the easiest.

-Mike

(yup, folks would certainly feel it, and would _very_ likely gripe, so
it would probably have to be configurable)

-
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: 2006-03-17 11:47    [W:0.139 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site