Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:30:42 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: interactive task starvation |
| |
* Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:
> 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.
yes. I thought you were asking why 'ls' pauses so long during the aforementioned workloads (of loadavg 7-8) - and i answered that. If you meant something else then please re-explain it to me.
Ingo - 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/
| |