Re: CFS review

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



* Roman Zippel <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > > [...] e.g. in this example there are three tasks that run only for 
> > > about 1ms every 3ms, but they get far more time than should have 
> > > gotten fairly:
> > > 
> > >  4544 roman     20   0  1796  520  432 S 32.1  0.4   0:21.08 lt
> > >  4545 roman     20   0  1796  344  256 R 32.1  0.3   0:21.07 lt
> > >  4546 roman     20   0  1796  344  256 R 31.7  0.3   0:21.07 lt
> > >  4547 roman     20   0  1532  272  216 R  3.3  0.2   0:01.94 l
> > 
> > Mike and me have managed to reproduce similarly looking 'top' output, 
> > but it takes some effort: we had to deliberately run a non-TSC 
> > sched_clock(), CONFIG_HZ=100, !CONFIG_NO_HZ and !CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS.
> 
> I used my old laptop for these tests, where tsc is indeed disabled due 
> to instability. Otherwise the kernel was configured with 
> CONFIG_HZ=1000.

please send all the debug info and source code we asked for - thanks!

	Ingo
-
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]
  Powered by Linux