On Wed, 4 May 2005 00:24, Carlos Carvalho wrote: > Look at this cpu usage in a two-processor machine: > > 893 user1 39 19 7212 5892 492 R 99.7 1.1 3694:29 mi41 > 1118 user2 25 0 155m 61m 624 R 50.0 12.3 857:54.18 b170-se.x > 1186 user3 25 0 155m 62m 640 R 50.2 12.3 103:25.22 b170-se.x > > The job with nice 19 seems to be using 100% of cpu time while the > other two nice 0 jobs share a single processor with 50% only. This is > persistent, not a transient. I did a kill -STOP to the nice 19 job and > a kill -CONT, and for a while it decreased the cpu usage but later > returned to the above. > > This is with kernel 2.6.11-5 and top 3.2.5. What's the reason for this > (apparent??) mis-behavior and how can I correct it? This is important > because the machine is used for number-crunching and users get really > upset when they don't get the expected share of cpu time... We currently do not have "nice" aware SMP balancing. The balancing is purely designed with throughput in mind, and something about the behaviour of the tasks you are running makes the scheduler design to balance them in this way. The only way around this is to use affinities to bind tasks to cpus. The only cross-cpu "nice" awareness we currently have is between hyperthread (SMT) logical siblings, and not true physical cores. I've been experimenting with code to make the SMP balancing "nice" aware but the balancing design in the 2.6 scheduler changes every 3 minutes for some apparent gain somewhere (it is getting impossible to track these) and there is no baseline for me to work off, so I have, for the moment, given up on that idea. Cheers, Con
Attachment:
pgpKBSxJb0rp7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- problem with nice values and cpu consumption in 2.6.11-5
- From: [email protected] (Carlos Carvalho)
- problem with nice values and cpu consumption in 2.6.11-5
- Prev by Date: Re: How to get a git repository?
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] VFS bugfix: two read_inode() calles without clear_inode() call between
- Previous by thread: Re: problem with nice values and cpu consumption in 2.6.11-5
- Next by thread: [RCF] [PATCH] unprivileged mount/umount
- Index(es):