Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH]O14int | Date | Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:43:49 +1000 |
| |
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
- 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/
| |