lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [stable] scheduler nice 19 versus 'idle' behavior / static low-priority scheduling
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 07:19:36AM -0800, Brian Rogers wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 10:08:13AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 2009-01-31 at 06:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 14:12 -0800, Brian Rogers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 02:59 -0500, Nathanael Hoyle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am running foldingathome under it at the moment, and it seems to be
>>>>>>> improving the situation somewhat, but I still need/want to test with
>>>>>>> Mike's referenced patches.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You will most definitely encounter evilness running SCHED_IDLE tasks
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> a kernel without the SCHED_IDLE fixes.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Speaking of SCHED_IDLE fixes, is
>>>>> 6bc912b71b6f33b041cfde93ca3f019cbaa852bc going to be put into the next
>>>>> stable 2.6.28 release? Without it on 2.6.28.2, I can still produce
>>>>> minutes-long freezes with BOINC or other idle processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the above commit on top of 2.6.28.2 and also
>>>>> cce7ade803699463ecc62a065ca522004f7ccb3d, the problem is solved, though
>>>>> I assume cce7ad isn't actually required to fix that, and I can test
>>>>> that if desired.
>>>>>
>>>> I think they both should go to stable, but dunno if they're headed that
>>>> direction or not.
>>>>
>>>> One way to find out, CCs added.
>>>>
>>> For those who may want to run SCHED_IDLE tasks in .27, I've integrated
>>> and lightly tested the fixes required to do so. One additional commit
>>> was needed to get SCHED_IDLE vs nice 19 working right, namely f9c0b09.
>>> Without that, SCHED_IDLE tasks received more CPU than nice 19 tasks.
>>>
>>> Since .27 is in long-term maintenance, I'd integrate into stable, but
>>> that's not my decision. Anyone who applies the below to their stable
>>> kernel gets to keep all the pieces should something break ;-)
>>>
>>
>> I'm going to hold off and not do this, as it seems too risky.
>>
>> But thanks for the pointers, perhaps someone else will want to do this
>> for their distro kernels if they have problems with this.
>>
>
> Is this statement meant to apply to both 2.6.27 and 2.6.28, or just 2.6.27?

Both.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-09 17:15    [W:0.076 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site