Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:46:53 -0700 (PDT) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] O6int for interactivity |
| |
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> At 03:12 PM 7/16/2003 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > >http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/irman2.c > > > >and run it with different -n (number of tasks) and -b (CPU burn ms time). > >At the same time try to build a kernel for example. Then you will realize > >that interactivity is not the bigger problem that the scheduler has right > >now. > > I added an irman2 load to contest. Con's changes 06+06.1 stomped it flat > [1]. irman2 is modified to run for 30s at a time, but with default parameters.
In my case I cannot even estimate the time. It takes 8:33 ususally to do a bzImage, and after 15 minutes I ctrl-c with only two lines printed in the console. If you consider the ratio between the total number of lines that a kernel build spits out, this couls have taken hours. Also, you might want also to try a low number of processes with a short burn, like the new patch seems to do to better hit mm players. Something like:
irman2 -n 10 -b 40
Guys, I'm saying this not because I do not appreciate the time Con is spending on it. I just hate to see time spent in the wrong priorities. Whatever super privileged sleep->burn pattern you code, it can be exploited w/out a global throttle for the CPU time assigned to interactive and non interactive tasks. This is Unix guys and it is used in multi-user environments, we cannot ship with a flaw like this.
- Davide
- 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/
| |