On 12/04/07, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
>
> btw, it's sd-0.39, isn't?
No! it is not. I have updated it to 2.6.21-rc5-sd-0.39.patch and
did the same tests.
It's nice-dependent. At least, that's something one would expect from
this design..
PRI values s constantly changing while the git-gc is running. Is this
expected behaviour?
Yep. Each nice level has a set of dynamic priorities which can be be
used by a task. After exhausting a time quota on a current level, the
task is moved to another (if there are no more -> "expired" array). So
the "PRI" field shows the current dynamic level.
The exceptions are SCHED_BATCH and Real-Time (FIFO and RR) tasks which
have different priority scheme.
/*
* This contains a bitmap for each dynamic priority level with empty slots
* for the valid priorities each different nice level can have. It allows
* us to stagger the slots where differing priorities run in a way that
* keeps latency differences between different nice levels at a minimum.
* ie, where 0 means a slot for that priority, priority running from left to
* right:
* nice -20 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
* nice -10 1001000100100010001001000100010010001000
* nice 0 0101010101010101010101010101010101010101
* nice 5 1101011010110101101011010110101101011011
* nice 10 0110111011011101110110111011101101110111
* nice 15 0111110111111011111101111101111110111111
* nice 19 1111111111111111111011111111111111111111
As you can see there is only a single possible level for nice 19
tasks, that's why your first results looked strange _but_ it might
have been due to the old version which lacks the prio_matrix (or it
was broken.. PRI == 0 for NICE 19 is very strabge indeed). So it's
good you have upgraded to the recent one.
I have made a small debugging extension that allows to monitor all the
priority levels (and how many times) being used by a given task
(configured via proc).. will test it later (don't have sd-enabled
kernel here). Just want to be sure that the "rules" are never broken.
Most likely Con did it already but as he is off-line we can't know.
Did another test with hackbench and git-gc both at same priorities
and captured the top output, in here all of them seem to have
same priority..
Yep, this one looks good.
thanks.
surya.
--
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
-
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]
