lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.044 / U:0.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site