Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 Feb 2009 07:51:44 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |