From: Paolo Ornati <ornati@fastwebnet.it>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: [SCHED] wrong priority calc - SIMPLE test case
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:11:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051231161134.4236c37a@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20051231090255.00bede00@pop.gmx.net>
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:13:24 +0100
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
> Ingo seems to have done something in 2.6.15-rc7-rt1 which defeats your
> little proggy. Taking a quick peek at the rt scheduler changes, nothing
> poked me in the eye, but by golly, I can't get this kernel to act up,
> whereas 2.6.14-virgin does.
Ok, I've sucessfully booted 2.6.15-rc7-rt1 (I think that I was
having troubles with Thread Softirqs and/or Thread Hardirqs).
First thing: I've preemption disabled, but it shouldn't matter too much
since we are talking about priority calculation...
1) My program isn't defeated at all. If I start it with the same args
of the previous examples it "seems" defeated, but it isn't.
Lowering the "cpu burn argument" I can reproduce the problem again:
"./a.out 200 & ./a.out 333"
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5607 paolo 15 0 2396 320 252 R 56.1 0.1 0:06.79 a.out
5606 paolo 15 0 2396 324 252 R 38.7 0.1 0:04.55 a.out
1 root 16 0 2556 552 468 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.28 init
2) Priority fluctuation - very interesting: playing with the only arg
my program has I've found this:
./a.out 200
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5628 paolo 15 0 2392 320 252 R 48.5 0.1 0:18.34 a.out
./a.out 300
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5633 paolo 15 0 2392 324 252 S 50.1 0.1 0:09.42 a.out
./a.out 400
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5634 paolo 15 0 2392 320 252 S 66.7 0.1 0:06.31 a.out
./a.out 500
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5638 paolo 25 0 2396 320 252 R 67.7 0.1 0:14.78 a.out
./a.out 700
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5640 paolo 15 0 2392 320 252 S 80.1 0.1 0:25.88 a.out
./a.out 800
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5644 paolo 17 0 2396 320 252 R 79.6 0.1 0:26.54 a.out
In the "./a.out 500" case, the priority starts at something like 16 and
then slowly go up to 25 _BUT_ if I start my DD test my cpu-eater
priority goes quickly to 16!
The real world test case (transcode) is a bit harder to describe: its
priority usually goes up to 25, sometimes I've seen it fluctuating a
bit (like go to 19 and then back to 25).
When I start my DD test I've seen basically 2 different behaviours:
A) good
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5788 paolo 25 0 114m 18m 2440 R 82.2 3.7 0:10.16 transcode
5804 paolo 15 0 49860 4500 1896 S 8.5 0.9 0:00.99 tcdecode
5808 paolo 18 0 4952 1520 412 D 5.0 0.3 0:00.36 dd
B) bad
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5743 paolo 18 0 114m 18m 2440 R 75.0 3.7 0:26.79 transcode
5759 paolo 15 0 49864 4500 1896 S 7.8 0.9 0:02.71 tcdecode
5750 paolo 16 0 19840 1136 916 S 1.5 0.2 0:00.23 tcdemux
5201 root 15 0 167m 17m 3336 S 0.8 3.5 0:19.38 X
5764 paolo 18 0 4948 1520 412 R 0.7 0.3 0:00.04 dd
Sometimes happens A and sometimes happens B...
PS: probably all these numbers aren't 100% reproducible... this is what
happens on my PC.
--
Paolo Ornati
Linux 2.6.15-rc7-rt1 on x86_64
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-12-31 15:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-27 18:09 [SCHED] Totally WRONG prority calculation with specific test-case (since 2.6.10-bk12) Paolo Ornati
2005-12-27 21:48 ` 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 [this message]
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
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-01-27 16:57 [SCHED] wrong priority calc - SIMPLE test case Con Kolivas
2006-01-27 20:06 ` MIke Galbraith
2006-01-27 23:18 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-28 0:01 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-28 3:43 ` MIke Galbraith
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=20051231161134.4236c37a@localhost \
--to=ornati@fastwebnet.it \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
/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.