On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 17:32 +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
> > Sorry. That theory is just plain wrong. ALL of those case _ARE_
> > interactive sleeps.
>
> It's not a theory. It's a result of observing a -j 16 build with the
> sources on an NFS mounted file system with top with and without the
> patches and comparing that with the same builds with the sources on a
> local file system. Without the patches the tasks in the kernel build
> all get the same dynamic priority as the X server and other interactive
> programs when the sources are on an NFS mounted file system. With the
> patches they generally have dynamic priorities between 6 to 10 higher
> than the X server and other interactive programs.
...and if you stick in a faster server?...
There is _NO_ fundamental difference between NFS and a local filesystem
that warrants marking one as "interactive" and the other as
"noninteractive". What you are basically saying is that all I/O should
be marked as TASK_NONINTERACTIVE.
Cheers,
Trond
-
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]
