All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: Paolo Ornati <ornati@fastwebnet.it>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:51:53 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200601132151.55742.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060113114607.54c83fc8@localhost>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2657 bytes --]

On Friday 13 January 2006 21:46, Paolo Ornati wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:13:11 +1100
>
> Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:
> > Can you try the following patch on 2.6.15 please? I'm interested in how
> > adversely this affects interactive performance as well as whether it
> > helps your test case.
>
> "./a.out 5000 & ./a.out 5237 & ./a.out 5331 &"
> "mount space/; sync; sleep 1; time dd if=space/bigfile of=/dev/null
> bs=1M count=256; umount space/"
>
>   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
>  5445 paolo     16   0  2396  288  228 R 34.8  0.1   0:05.84 a.out
>  5446 paolo     15   0  2396  288  228 S 32.8  0.1   0:05.53 a.out
>  5444 paolo     16   0  2392  288  228 R 31.3  0.1   0:05.99 a.out
>  5443 paolo     16   0 10416 1104  848 R  0.2  0.2   0:00.01 top
>  5451 paolo     15   0  4948 1468  372 D  0.2  0.3   0:00.01 dd
>
> DD test takes ~20 s (instead of 8s).
>
> As you can see DD priority is now very good (15) but it still suffers
> because also my test programs get good priority (15/16).
>
>
> Things are BETTER on the real test case (transcode): this is because
> transcode usually gets priority 16 and "dd" gets 15... so dd is quite
> happy.

This seems a reasonable compromise. In your "test app" case you are using 
quirky code to reproduce the worst case scenario. Given that with your quirky 
setup you are using 3 cpu hogs (effectively) then slowing down dd from 8s to 
20s seems an appropriate slowdown (as opposed to the many minutes you were 
getting previously).

See my followup patches that I have posted following "[PATCH 0/5] sched - 
interactivity updates". The first 3 patches are what you tested. These 
patches are being put up for testing hopefully in -mm.

> BUT what is STRANGE is this: usually transcode is stuck to priority 16
> using about 88% of the CPU, but sometimes (don't know how to reproduce
> it) its priority grows up to 25 and then stay to 25.
>
> When transcode priority is 25 the DD test is obviously happy: in
> particular 2 things can happen (this is expected because I've observed
> this thing before):
>
> 1) priority of transcode stay to 25 (when the file transcode is
> reading from, through pipes, IS cached).
>
> 2) CPU usage and priority of transcode go down (the file transcode is
> reading from ISN'T cached and DD massive disk usage interferes with
> this reading). When DD finish trancode priority go back to 25.

I suspect this is entirely dependent on the balance between time spent reading 
on disk, waiting on pipe and so on.

Thanks for your test case and testing!

Cheers,
Con

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2006-01-13 10:52 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
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 [this message]
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=200601132151.55742.kernel@kolivas.org \
    --to=kernel@kolivas.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=ornati@fastwebnet.it \
    --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.