Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: CFS not suitable for desktop computers | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Mon, 04 May 2009 19:59:43 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 17:16 +0200, Nico Schümann wrote: > Thank you Ray Lee and Mike Galbraith for your responses, I ran the > script and attached its gathered information. > > Mike Galbraith wrote: > > How hard is hard? Can you describe the loads you're having trouble > > with, and the hardware you're running them on? > > > > > I could reproduce "hard" load by just compiling the linux kernel, make > -j3 while reading mails with Thunderbird, which is not that hard > foreground load. Thunderbird starts reacting really slowly while compiling. > > My system has a 1,3 GHz AMD Athlon CPU (32 bits) and 1 GB of RAM. Now > you will say: That is not very much. Of course it is not, but with the > old scheduler, the system felt way faster, so it seemed to be enough for > compiling and reading mails.
Hm. The load isn't extreme, but it appears to me that between X and Thunderbird, CPU demand is high enough that you WILL feel the slowdown when you toss in three competing CPU hogs plus other system activity all on one core.
> I hope you can find useful information in the attached log, I enabled > SCHED_DEBUG and SCHEDSTATS, if you need any more information, just ask > me, I will try to answer.
I'll look closer tomorrow (ill). For now, how much CPU does X/Thunderbird consume without the kbuild?
(I know this isn't what you want to hear, but SCHED_IDLE is a major case of happiness for heavy lifting background loads, especially so on UP.)
-Mike
-- 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/
| |