lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.6.21-rc1: known regressions (v2) (part 2)
    Date
    On Thursday 01 March 2007 22:33, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 22:13 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
    > > > if then there should be a mechanism /in the hardware/ to set the
    > > > priority of a CPU - and then the hardware could decide how to
    > > > prioritize between siblings. Doing this in software is really hard.
    > >
    > > And that's the depressing part because of course I was interested in that
    > > as the original approach to the problem (and it was a big problem). When
    > > I spoke to Intel and AMD (of course to date no SMT AMD chip exists) at
    > > kernel summit they said it was too hard to implement hardware priorities
    > > well. Which is real odd since IBM have already done it with Power...
    > >
    > > Still I think it has been working fine in software till now, but now it
    > > has to deal with the added confusion of dynticks, so I already know what
    > > will happen to it.
    >
    > Well, it's not a dyntick problem in the first place. Even w/o dynticks
    > we go idle with local_softirq_pending(). Dynticks contains an explicit
    > check for that, which makes it visible.

    Oops I'm sorry if I made it sound like there's a dynticks problem. That was
    not my intent and I said as much in an earlier email. Even though I'm finding
    myself defending code that has already been softly tagged for redundancy,
    let's be clear here; we're talking about at most a further 70ms delay in
    scheduling a niced task in the presence of a nice 0 task, which is a
    reasonable delay for ksoftirqd which we nice the eyeballs out of in mainline.
    Considering under load our scheduler has been known to cause scheduling
    delays of 10 seconds I still don't see this as a bug. Dynticks just "points
    it out to us".

    --
    -ck
    -
    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: 2007-03-01 13:09    [W:4.264 / U:0.116 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site