From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964865AbWFNFJu (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:09:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964871AbWFNFJu (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:09:50 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.de ([213.165.64.21]:41190 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S964865AbWFNFJt (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:09:49 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 Subject: RE: process starvation with 2.6 scheduler From: Mike Galbraith To: Kallol Biswas Cc: Stephen Hemminger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Radjendirane Codandaramane In-Reply-To: <478F19F21671F04298A2116393EEC3D531CEA4@sjc1exm08.pmc_nt.nt.pmc-sierra.bc.ca> References: <478F19F21671F04298A2116393EEC3D531CEA4@sjc1exm08.pmc_nt.nt.pmc-sierra.bc.ca> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 07:13:17 +0200 Message-Id: <1150261998.8611.14.camel@Homer.TheSimpsons.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 16:03 -0700, Kallol Biswas wrote: > It seems that with the priority set to 19 the netserver processes do not starve but still we have unfair scheduling issue. The netperf clients do not timeout now but one of the servers runs much less than the other. It seems that thorough understanding of scheduling algorithm is essential at this point. Are the clients all on one box? -Mike