[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v18

    * Willy Tarreau <> wrote:

    > > > I have no idea about what version brought that unexpected
    > > > behaviour, but it's clearly something which needs to be tracked
    > > > down.
    > >
    > > hm, the two problems might be related. Could you try v17 perhaps? In
    > > v18 i have 'unified' all the sched.c's between the various kernel
    > > releases, maybe that brought in something unexpected on
    > > (perhaps try v2.6.21.5 based cfs too?)
    > Well, forget this, I'm nuts. I'm sorry, but I did not set any of the
    > -R and -S parameter on ocbench, which means that all the processes ran
    > at full speed and did not sleep. The load distribution was not fair,
    > but since they put a lot of stress on the X server, I think it might
    > be one of the reasons for the unfairness. I got the same behaviour
    > with -v17, -v9 and even 2.4 ! It told me something was wrong on my
    > side ;-)
    > I've retried with 50%/50% run/sleep, and it now works like a charm.
    > It's perfectly smooth with both small and long run/sleep times
    > (between 1 and 100 ms). I think that with X saturated, it might
    > explain why I only had one CPU running at 100% !

    ah, great! :-) My testbox needs a 90% / 10% ratio between sleep/run for
    an 8x8 matrix of ocbench tasks to not overload the X server. Once the
    overload happens X starts penalizing certain clients it finds abusive (i
    think), and that mechanism seems to be wall-clock based and it thus
    brings in alot of non-determinism and skews the clients.

    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: 2007-06-24 22:35    [W:0.020 / U:2.220 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site