Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: interactive task starvation | Date | Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:28:06 +1100 |
| |
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 01:25, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote: > > What you're fixing with unfairness is worth pursuing. The 'ls' issue > > just blows my mind though for reasons I've just said. Where are the > > magic cycles going when nothing else is running that make it take ten > > times longer? > > i believe such artifacts are due to array switches not happening (due to > the workload getting queued back to rq->active, not rq->expired), and > 'ls' only gets a timeslice once in a while, every STARVATION_LIMIT > times. I.e. such workloads penalize the CPU-bound 'ls' process quite > heavily.
With nothing else running on the machine it should still get all the cpu no matter which array it's on though.
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/
| |