Re: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity

[Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>]

Nick Piggin wrote:

>
>
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
>> At 12:51 PM 8/12/2003 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Rob Landley wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 05 August 2003 06:32, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But by employing the kernel's services in the shape of a blocking
>>>>> syscall, all sleeps are intentional.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.  Some sleeps indicate "I have run out of stuff to do right 
>>>> now, I'm going to wait for a timer or another process or something 
>>>> to wake me up with new work".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some sleeps indicate "ideally this would run on an enormous ramdisk 
>>>> attached to gigabit ethernet, but hard drives and internet 
>>>> connections are just too slow so my true CPU-hogness is hidden by 
>>>> the fact I'm running on a PC instead of a mainframe."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't quite understand what you are getting at, but if you don't 
>>> want to
>>> sleep you should be able to use a non blocking syscall. But in some 
>>> cases
>>> I think there are times when you may not be able to use a non 
>>> blocking call.
>>> And if a process is a CPU hog, its a CPU hog. If its not its not. 
>>> Doesn't
>>> matter how it would behave on another system.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah, but there is something there.  Take the X and xmms's gl thread 
>> thingy I posted a while back.  (X runs long enough to expire in the 
>> presence of a couple of low priority cpu hogs.  gl thread, which is a 
>> mondo cpu hog, and normally runs and runs and runs at cpu hog 
>> priority, suddenly acquires extreme interactive priority, and X, 
>> which is normally sleepy suddenly becomes permanently runnable at cpu 
>> hog priority)  The gl thread starts sleeping because X isn't getting 
>> enough cpu to be able to get it's work done and go to sleep.  The gl 
>> thread isn't voluntarily sleeping, and X isn't voluntarily running.  
>> The behavior change is forced upon both.
>
>
>
> It does... It is I tell ya!
>
> Look, the gl thread is probably _very_ explicitly asking to sleep. No I
> don't know how X works, but I have an idea that select is generally used
> as an event notification, right?
>
> Now the gl thread is essentially saying "wait until X finishes the work
> I've given it, or I get some other event": ie. "put me to sleep until
> this fd becomes readable".
>
> OK maybe your scenario is a big problem. Its not due to any imagined
> semantics in the way things are sleeping. Its due to the scheduler.


And no, X isn't intentionally sleeping. Its being preempted which is
obviously not intentional.