lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [BUG] scheduler: strange behavor with massive interactive processes
Hi Mike,

> I puttered around with your testcase a bit, and didn't see interactive
> tasks starving other interactive tasks so much as plain old interactive
> tasks starving expired tasks, which they're supposed to be able to do,

I inserted a trace code observing all context switches into the kernel and
confirmed that less than 10 processes having max prio certainly run
continuously and the others (having max - 1 prio) can run only at the
beggining of the program or when runqueue are expired (the chance is about
once a 200 secs in the 200 [procs/CPU] case, and their CPU time is deprived
in only 1 ticks) on each CPUs.

> Interactivity still seems to be fine with reasonable non-interactive
> loads despite ~reserving more bandwidth for non-interactive tasks. Only
> lightly tested, YMMV, and of course the standard guarantee applies ;)

I've only seen your patch briefly and cant' make accurate comment yet. For
the time time being, however, I examined the test which is same as my initial
mail.

Test environment
================
- kernel: 2.6.21-rc5 with or without Mike's patch
- others: same as my initial mail except for omitting nice 19 cases

Result (without Mike's patch)
=============================
+---------+-----------+------+------+------+--------+
| # of | # of | avg | max | min | stdev |
| CPUs | processes | (*1) | (*2) | (*3) | (*4) |
+---------+-----------+------+------+------+--------+
| 1(i386) | 200 | 162 | 8258 | 1 | 1113 |
+---------+-----------+------+------+------+--------+
| | | 378 | 9314 | 2 | 1421 |
| 2(ia64) | 400 +------+------+------+--------+
| | | 189 |12544 | 1 | 1443 |
+---------+-----------+------+------+------+--------+
*1) average number of loops among all processes
*2) maximum number of loops among all processes
*3) minimum number of loops among all processes
*4) standard deviation

Result (with Mike's patch)
==========================
+---------+-----------+------+------+------+--------+
| # of | # of | avg | max | min | stdev |
| CPUs | processes | | | | |
+---------+-----------+------+------+------+--------+
| 1(i386) | 200 | 154 | 1114 | 1 | 210 |
+---------+-----------+------+------+------+--------+
| | | 373 | 1328 | 108 | 246 |
| 2(ia64) | 400 +------+------+------+--------+
| | | 186 | 1169 | 1 | 211 |
+---------+-----------+------+------+------+--------+
I also gatherd tha data, changing # of processors for the 1 CPU(i386):

+---------+-----------+------+------+------+--------+
| # of | # of | avg | max | min | stdev |
| CPUs | processes | | | | |
+---------+-----------+------+------+------+--------+
| | 25 | 1208 | 1787 | 987 | 237 |
| +-----------+------+------+------+--------+
| | 50 | 868 | 1631 | 559 | 275 |
| 1(i386) +-----------+------+------+------+--------+
| | 100 | 319 | 1017 | 25 | 232 |
| +-----------+------+------+------+--------+
| | 200(*1) | 154 | 1114 | 1 | 210 |
+---------+-----------+------+------+------+--------+
*1) Same as the above table, just for easily comparison

It seems to highly depend on # of processes and at present, Ingo's patch
looks better.

Thanks,

Satoru
-
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: 2007-03-31 12:19    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans