All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paolo Ornati <ornati@fastwebnet.it>
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [SCHED] Totally WRONG prority calculation with specific test-case (since 2.6.10-bk12)
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:09:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051227190918.65c2abac@localhost> (raw)

Hello,

I've found an easy-to-reproduce-for-me test case that shows a totally
wrong priority calculation: basically a CPU-intensitive process gets
better priority than a disk-intensitive one (dd if=bigfile
of=/dev/null ...).

Seems impossible, isn't it?

---- THE NUMBERS with 2.6.15-rc7 -----

The test-case is the Xvid encoding of dvd-ripped track with transcode
(using "dvd::rip" interface). The copied-and-pasted command line is
this:

mkdir -m 0775 -p '/home/paolo/tmp/test/tmp' &&
cd /home/paolo/tmp/test/tmp && dr_exec transcode -H 10 -a 2 -x vob,null
-i /home/paolo/tmp/test/vob/003 -w 1198,50 -b 128,0,0 -s 1.972
--a52_drc_off -f 25 -Y 52,8,52,8 -B 27,10,8 -R 1 -y xvid4,null
-o /dev/null --print_status 20 && echo DVDRIP_SUCCESS mkdir -m 0775 -p
'/home/paolo/tmp/test/tmp' && cd /home/paolo/tmp/test/tmp && dr_exec
transcode -H 10 -a 2 -x vob -i /home/paolo/tmp/test/vob/003 -w 1198,50
-b 128,0,0 -s 1.972 --a52_drc_off -f 25 -Y 52,8,52,8 -B 27,10,8 -R 2 -y
xvid4 -o /home/paolo/tmp/test/avi/003/test-003.avi --print_status 20 &&
echo DVDRIP_SUCCESS


Here there is a TOP snapshot while running it:

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
 5721 paolo     16   0  115m  18m 2428 R 84.4  3.7   0:15.11 transcode
 5736 paolo     25   0 50352 4516 1912 R  8.4  0.9   0:01.53 tcdecode
 5725 paolo     15   0  115m  18m 2428 S  4.6  3.7   0:00.84 transcode
 5738 paolo     18   0  115m  18m 2428 S  0.8  3.7   0:00.15 transcode
 5734 paolo     25   0 20356 1140  920 S  0.6  0.2   0:00.12 tcdemux
 5731 paolo     25   0 47312 2540 1996 R  0.4  0.5   0:00.08 tcdecode
 5319 root      15   0  166m  16m 2584 S  0.2  3.2   0:25.06 X
 5444 paolo     16   0 87116  22m  15m R  0.2  4.6   0:04.05 konsole
 5716 paolo     16   0 10424 1160  876 R  0.2  0.2   0:00.06 top
 5735 paolo     25   0 22364 1436  932 S  0.2  0.3   0:00.01 tcextract


DD running alone:

paolo@tux /mnt $ mount space/; time dd if=space/bigfile of=/dev/null bs=1M count=128; umount space/
128+0 records in
128+0 records out

real    0m4.052s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.209s

DD while transcoding:

paolo@tux /mnt $ mount space/; time dd if=space/bigfile of=/dev/null bs=1M count=128; umount space/
128+0 records in
128+0 records out

real    0m26.121s
user    0m0.001s
sys     0m0.255s

---------------------------------------

I've tried older kernels finding that 2.6.11 is the first affected.

Going on with testing...

        2.6.11-rc[1-5]:
2.6.11-rc3 bad
2.6.11-rc1 bad

        2.6.10-bk[1-14]
2.6.10-bk7 good
2.6.10-bk11 good
2.6.10-bk13 bad
2.6.10-bk12 bad

So the problem was introduced with:
	>> 2.6.10-bk12 09-Jan-2005 <<

The exact behaviour is different with 2.6.11/12/13/14... for example:
with 2.6.11 the priority of "transcode" is initially set to ~25 and go
down to 17/18 when running DD.

The problem doesn't seem 100% reproducible with every kernel, sometimes
a "BAD" kernel looks "GOOD"... or maybe it was me confused by too
much compile/install/reboot/test work ;)

Other INFO:
- I'm on x86_64
- preemption ON/OFF doesn't make any differences


Can anyone reproduce this?
IOW: is this affecting only my machine?

-- 
	Paolo Ornati
	Linux 2.6.15-rc7-gf89f5948 on x86_64

             reply	other threads:[~2005-12-27 18:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-12-27 18:09 Paolo Ornati [this message]
2005-12-27 21:48 ` [SCHED] Totally WRONG prority calculation with specific test-case (since 2.6.10-bk12) Paolo Ornati
2005-12-27 23:26   ` Con Kolivas
2005-12-28 11:01     ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-28 11:19       ` Con Kolivas
2005-12-28 11:35         ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-28 17:23           ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-28 17:39             ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-30 13:52     ` [SCHED] wrong priority calc - SIMPLE test case Paolo Ornati
2005-12-31  2:06       ` Peter Williams
2005-12-31 10:34         ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-31 10:52           ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-31 11:12             ` Con Kolivas
2005-12-31 13:44             ` Peter Williams
2005-12-31 16:31               ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-31 22:04                 ` Peter Williams
2005-12-31  8:13       ` Mike Galbraith
2005-12-31 11:00         ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-31 15:11         ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-31 16:37           ` Mike Galbraith
2005-12-31 17:24             ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-31 17:42               ` Paolo Ornati
2006-01-01 11:39             ` Paolo Ornati
2006-01-02  9:15               ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-02  9:50                 ` Paolo Ornati
2006-01-09 11:11                 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-09 15:52                   ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-09 16:08                     ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-09 18:14                       ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-09 20:00                     ` Paolo Ornati
2006-01-09 20:23                       ` Paolo Ornati
2006-01-10  7:08                       ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-10 12:07                         ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-10 12:56                           ` Paolo Ornati
2006-01-10 13:01                             ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-10 13:53                               ` Paolo Ornati
2006-01-10 15:18                                 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-13  1:13       ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-13  1:32         ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-13 10:46         ` Paolo Ornati
2006-01-13 10:51           ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-13 13:01             ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-13 14:34               ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-13 16:15                 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-14  2:05                   ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-14  2:56                     ` Mike Galbraith
2005-12-27 23:59   ` [SCHED] Totally WRONG prority calculation with specific test-case (since 2.6.10-bk12) Peter Williams
2005-12-28 10:20     ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-28 13:38       ` Peter Williams
2005-12-28 19:45         ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-29  3:13         ` Nick Piggin
2005-12-29  3:35           ` Peter Williams
2005-12-29  8:11             ` Nick Piggin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20051227190918.65c2abac@localhost \
    --to=ornati@fastwebnet.it \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.