Re: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention

[Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>]

On Saturday 03 June 2006 08:19, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote on Friday, June 02, 2006 3:15 PM
>
> > On Saturday 03 June 2006 06:53, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > > Con Kolivas wrote on Friday, June 02, 2006 3:13 AM
> > >
> > > > On Friday 02 June 2006 19:53, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > > > > Yeah, but that is the worst case though.  Average would probably be
> > > > > a lot lower than worst case.  Also, on smt it's not like the
> > > > > current logical cpu is getting blocked because of another task is
> > > > > running on its sibling CPU. The hardware still guarantees equal
> > > > > share of hardware resources for both logical CPUs.
> > > >
> > > > "Equal share of hardware resources" is exactly the problem; they
> > > > shouldn't have equal share since they're sharing one physical cpu's
> > > > resources. It's a relative breakage of the imposed nice support and I
> > > > disagree with your conclusion.
> > >
> > > But you keep on missing the point that this only happens in the initial
> > > stage of tasks competing for CPU resources.
> > >
> > > If this is broken, then current smt nice is equally broken with the
> > > same reasoning: once the low priority task gets scheduled, there is
> > > nothing to kick it off the CPU until its entire time slice get used up.
> > >  They compete equally with a high priority task running on the sibling
> > > CPU.
> >
> > There has to be some way of metering it out and in the absence of cpu
> > based hardware priority support (like ppc64 has) the only useful thing we
> > have to work with is timeslice. Yes sometimes the high priority task is
> > at the start and sometimes at the end of the timeslice but overall it
> > balances the proportions out reasonably fairly.
>
> Good!  Then why special case the initial stage?  Just let task run and it
> will even out statistically.  Everyone is happy, less code, less special
> case, same end result.

Hang on I think I missed something there. What did you conclude I conceded 
there? When I say "work with timeslice" I mean use percentage of timeslice 
the way smt nice currently does.

-- 
-ck
-
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/