From: Fabio Riccardi <fabio@chromium.com>
To: David Lang <dlang@diginsite.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux scheduler limitations?
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:55:11 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3AC3AF3E.F083EE36@chromium.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0103291326110.26411-100000@dlang.diginsite.com>
I'm using 2.4.2-ac26, but I've noticed the same behavior with all the 2.4
kernels I've seen so far.
I haven't even tried on 2.2
- Fabio
David Lang wrote:
> 2.2 or 2.4 kernel?
>
> the 2.4 does a MUCH better job of dealing with large numbers of processes.
>
> David Lang
>
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Fabio Riccardi wrote:
>
> > Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:19:05 -0800
> > From: Fabio Riccardi <fabio@chromium.com>
> > To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: linux scheduler limitations?
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm working on an enhanced version of Apache and I'm hitting my head
> > against something I don't understand.
> >
> > I've found a (to me) unexplicable system behaviour when the number of
> > Apache forked instances goes somewhere beyond 1050, the machine
> > suddently slows down almost top a halt and becomes totally unresponsive,
> > until I stop the test (SpecWeb).
> >
> > Profiling the kernel shows that the scheduler and the interrupt handler
> > are taking most of the CPU time.
> >
> > I understand that there must be a limit to the number of processes that
> > the scheduler can efficiently handle, but I would expect some sort of
> > gradual performance degradation when increasing the number of tasks,
> > instead I observe that by increasing Apache's MaxClient linit by as
> > little as 10 can cause a sudden transition between smooth working with
> > lots (30-40%) of CPU idle to a total lock-up.
> >
> > Moreover the max number of processes is not even constant. If I increase
> > the server load gradually then I manage to have 1500 processes running
> > with no problem, but if the transition is sharp (the SpecWeb case) than
> > I end-up having a lock up.
> >
> > Anybody seen this before? Any clues?
> >
> > - Fabio
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-03-29 21:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-03-29 21:19 linux scheduler limitations? Fabio Riccardi
2001-03-29 21:26 ` David Lang
2001-03-29 21:55 ` Fabio Riccardi [this message]
2001-03-30 1:45 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-03-30 2:58 ` Fabio Riccardi
2001-03-29 21:35 ` J . A . Magallon
2001-03-29 22:12 ` Fabio Riccardi
2001-03-29 22:33 ` J . A . Magallon
2001-03-29 22:51 ` Fabio Riccardi
2001-03-30 6:52 ` Giuliano Pochini
2001-04-02 22:58 ` Alan Cox
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=3AC3AF3E.F083EE36@chromium.com \
--to=fabio@chromium.com \
--cc=dlang@diginsite.com \
--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.