Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH]O14int | From | Martin Schlemmer <> | Date | 11 Aug 2003 15:58:05 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 11:43, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:15, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Con Kolivas wrote: > > >On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:44, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > >>On Sat, 2003-08-09 at 11:04, Con Kolivas wrote: > > >>>On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 01:49, Con Kolivas wrote: > > >>>>More duck tape interactivity tweaks > > >>> > > >>>s/duck/duct > > >>> > > >>>>Wli pointed out an error in the nanosecond to jiffy conversion which > > >>>>may have been causing too easy to migrate tasks on smp (? performance > > >>>>change). > > >>> > > >>>Looks like I broke SMP build with this. Will fix soon; don't bother > > >>>trying this on SMP yet. > > >> > > >>Not to be nasty or such, but all these patches have taken > > >>a very responsive HT box to one that have issues with multiple > > >>make -j10's running and random jerkyness. > > > > > >A UP HT box you mean? That shouldn't be capable of running multiple make > > > -j10s without some noticable effect. Apart from looking impressive, there > > > is no point in having 30 cpu heavy things running with only 1 and a bit > > > processor and the machine being smooth as silk; the cpu heavy things will > > > just be unfairly starved in the interest of appearance (I can do that > > > easily enough). Please give details if there is a specific issue you > > > think I've broken or else I wont know about it. > > > > Yeah make -j10s won't be without impact, but I think for a lot of > > interactive stuff they don't need a lot of CPU, just to get it > > in a timely manner. And Martin did say it had been responsive. > > Sounds like in this case your changes are causing the interactive > > stuff to get less CPU or higher scheduling latency? > > Sigh.., > > No, it sounds to me like things are expiring faster than on default. He didn't > say make -j10, it was multiple -j10s. This is one where you simply cannot let > the scheduler keep starving the make -j10s indefinitely for X; on a server or > multiuser box X will simply cause unfair starvation. I'm trying to find a > workaround for this without rewriting whole sections of the scheduler code, > but I'm just not sure I should be trying to optimise for a desktop that runs > loads >16 per cpu. (I'll keep trying though, but if there is no workaround > that remains fair it wont happen) >
Con, you are doing great work for UP desktop systems. All I am saying is I do not think that there will be an golden middle way. If I disable SMP, it works much as expected for the short time I tested. I guess I am just voicing what a few people have said - maybe there should be a choice for what sheduler - UP or SMP.
Cheers,
-- Martin Schlemmer
- 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/
| |