Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:39:19 +0100 | From | Manfred Spraul <> | Subject | Re: cross-cpu balancing with the new scheduler |
| |
Davide Libenzi wrote: > > I've a very simple phrase when QA is bugging me with these corner cases : > > "As Designed" > > It's much much better than adding code and "Return To QA" :-) > I tried priority balancing in BMQS but i still prefer "As Designed" ... > Another test, now with 4 process (dual cpu): #nice -n 19 ./eatcpu& #nice -n 19 ./eatcpu& #./eatcpu& #nice -n -19 ./eatcpu&
And the top output: <<<<<< 73 processes: 68 sleeping, 5 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped CPU0 states: 100.0% user, 0.0% system, 100.0% nice, 0.0% idle CPU1 states: 98.0% user, 2.0% system, 33.0% nice, 0.0% idle [snip] PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND 1163 root 39 19 396 396 324 R N 99.5 0.1 0:28 eatcpu 1164 root 39 19 396 396 324 R N 33.1 0.1 0:11 eatcpu 1165 root 39 0 396 396 324 R 33.1 0.1 0:07 eatcpu 1166 root 39 -19 396 396 324 R < 31.3 0.1 0:06 eatcpu 1168 manfred 1 0 980 976 768 R 2.7 0.2 0:00 top [snip]
The niced process still has it's own cpu, and the "nice -19" process has 33% of the second cpu.
IMHO that's buggy. 4 running process, 1 on cpu0, 3 on cpu1.
-- Manfred - 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/
| |