Hi Ingo,
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 05:52:14PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Today I had a little time to try CFS again (last time it was -v9!). I
> > ran it on top of 2.6.20.14, and simply tried ocbench again. You
> > remember ? With -v9, I ran 64 processes which all progressed very
> > smoothly. With -v18, it's not the case anymore. When I run 64
> > processes, only 7 of them show smooth rounds, while all the other ones
> > are only updated once a second. Sometimes they only progress by one
> > iteration, sometimes by a full round. Some are even updated once ever
> > 2 seconds, because if I drag an xterm above them and quickly remove
> > it, the xterm leaves a trace there for up to 2 seconds.
> >
> > Also, only one of my 2 CPUs is used. I see the rq vary between 1 and
> > 5, with a permanent 50% idle... :
> >
> > procs memory swap io system cpu
> > r b w swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id
> > 1 0 0 0 874400 7864 90436 0 0 0 0 279 2204 50 0 50
> > 3 0 0 0 874408 7864 90436 0 0 0 0 273 2122 50 1 50
> > 1 0 0 0 874408 7864 90436 0 0 0 0 253 1660 49 1 50
> > 3 0 0 0 874408 7864 90436 0 0 0 0 252 1977 50 0 50
> > 2 0 0 0 874408 7864 90436 0 0 0 0 253 2274 49 1 50
> > 3 0 0 0 874408 7864 90436 0 0 0 0 252 1846 49 1 50
> > 1 0 0 0 874408 7864 90436 0 0 0 0 339 1782 49 1 50
> >
> > I have no idea about what version brought that unexpected behaviour,
> > but it's clearly something which needs to be tracked down.
>
> hm, the two problems might be related. Could you try v17 perhaps? In v18
> i have 'unified' all the sched.c's between the various kernel releases,
> maybe that brought in something unexpected on 2.6.20.14. (perhaps try
> v2.6.21.5 based cfs too?)
Well, forget this, I'm nuts. I'm sorry, but I did not set any of the -R
and -S parameter on ocbench, which means that all the processes ran at
full speed and did not sleep. The load distribution was not fair, but
since they put a lot of stress on the X server, I think it might be one
of the reasons for the unfairness. I got the same behaviour with -v17,
-v9 and even 2.4 ! It told me something was wrong on my side ;-)
I've retried with 50%/50% run/sleep, and it now works like a charm. It's
perfectly smooth with both small and long run/sleep times (between 1 and 100
ms). I think that with X saturated, it might explain why I only had one CPU
running at 100% !
Next time, I'll try to take a bit more time for such a test.
> could you send me the file the cfs-debug-info.sh script produced. You
> can pick the script up from:
>
> http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/tools/cfs-debug-info.sh
OK I got it, but I've not run it since the problem was between the keyboard
and the chair. If you want an output anyway, I can give it a run.
Sorry again for the wrong alert.
regards,
willy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
