All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@sgi.com>,
	marcelo@connectiva.com.br.munich.sgi.com, rml@tech9.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] set_cpus_allowed() for 2.4
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:30:28 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3DED4CA4.5B9A20EA@digeo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20021204000618.GG11730@dualathlon.random

Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 
> ...
> >
> > The difference is unlikely to be noticed by many.  (But it should be
> > _better_ than stock 2.4)
> 
> it can't be better in SMP because due its scalability feature we
> completely lose track of the global smp and we only can keep track of
> the single per-cpu queue. Was it on SMP or UP?

The problem with the "interactivity estimator" was observed on
dual CPU.  It has almost vanished in 2.4.20aa1 and I don't think
it needs any more attention.

(BTW: it is not possible to trigger this problem when the background
load is just one or more busywaits.  It has to be a compilation.  It
could be something to do with all the short-lived processes, or gcc -pipe)

> ...
> > With a `make -j1' running:
> >
> > - Normal O(1) behaviour in StarOffice 5.2 is 15-30 second delays between
> >   actions.
> >
> > - With 2.4.20aa1, typing into a text document typically had a 2-3 character
> >   delay.
> >
> > - With the standard 2.4 scheduler the delay is zero characters.
> 
> again, I guess that's SMP and that's quite a pain to fix it to be 100%
> equivalent to 2.4 without hurting scalability.

This problem is the "changed sched_yield semantics".  It was actually
tested on uniprocessor.  The difference between 2.4 and 2.4-aa is
still noticeable here, but it is not a terrible problem now.

> ..
> 
> Overall I don't see any showstopper with openoffice (or staroffice) on
> my version of the o1 scheduler.

I'd agree that it's not a showstopper.  It's in the "could be improved
a bit sometime" department.

Post-2.4, well, spinning on sched_yield() is a silly way to implement
a graphical application and I don't believe we need to struggle to
support such a thing.

The Open Group say

     The sched_yield() function shall force the running thread to relinquish
     the processor until it again becomes the head of its thread list. It
     takes no arguments.

That's a bit vague, but it does tend to imply that a yield could
relinquish the CPU for a very long time.

  reply	other threads:[~2002-12-04  0:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-12-03  0:26 [PATCH] set_cpus_allowed() for 2.4 Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-02 17:24 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-12-02 18:57   ` Robert Love
2002-12-03  0:51   ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-02 17:50 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-12-02 18:50   ` Adrian Bunk
2002-12-02 19:12     ` Robert Love
2002-12-02 19:30   ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-02 19:50     ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-12-03 20:49       ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-03 21:09         ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-12-04  0:09           ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-12-04  0:06         ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-12-04  0:30           ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2002-12-04  0:42             ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-12-04  1:03               ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-12-04  9:25                 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-12-04  1:14               ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-04  1:21                 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-12-04  2:14                   ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-06 18:11                 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-12-08 13:23     ` Ingo Molnar
2002-12-08 19:56       ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-09 20:13         ` Ingo Molnar
2002-12-03  1:11   ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-02 18:59     ` Robert Love
2002-12-02 22:47     ` Alan Cox
2002-12-02 22:38       ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-02 22:41         ` Robert Love
2002-12-07 16:55           ` bill davidsen
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-12-13 23:08 Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-13 21:34 ` Adrian Bunk
2002-12-14  4:55   ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-09 20:19 kernel
2002-12-09  3:02 Jim Houston
2002-10-01 23:03 Robert Love
2002-10-02 13:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-10-02 15:00   ` Robert Love
2002-11-05  3:37 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-11-06 15:32   ` Adrian Bunk
2002-11-07 21:42     ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-02 17:12   ` Mikael Pettersson
2002-12-03  0:51     ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-02 17:47       ` Mikael Pettersson
2002-12-02 19:10         ` Robert Love

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=3DED4CA4.5B9A20EA@digeo.com \
    --to=akpm@digeo.com \
    --cc=andrea@suse.de \
    --cc=hch@sgi.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marcelo@connectiva.com.br.munich.sgi.com \
    --cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
    --cc=rml@tech9.net \
    /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.