On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 12:13 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> >>>I'm also pretty sure, that CPU controller based on timeslice tricks
> >>>behaves poorly on burstable load patterns as well and with interactive
> >>>tasks. So before commiting I propose to perform a good testing on
> >>>different load patterns.
> >>
> >>Yes, it can only react very slowly.
> >
> >
> > Actually, this might not be that much of a problem. I know I can
> > traverse queue heads periodically very cheaply. Traversing both active
> > and expired arrays to requeue starving tasks once every 100ms costs max
> > 4usecs (3GHz P4) for a typical distribution.
>
> with fair scheduling with can be a big problem, as tasks working less
> then a tick are hard to account :/
Yeah, tasks dodging the timer interrupt can steal considerable time. I
instrumented this once, and caught tasks stealing in excess of 30% of
the timeslice of their more lethargic brothers. Generally, they get
caught often enough that statistics ~evens the playing field.
-Mike
-
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]
