From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261905AbTJAEJw (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:09:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261906AbTJAEJw (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:09:52 -0400 Received: from dyn-ctb-203-221-73-105.webone.com.au ([203.221.73.105]:40453 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261905AbTJAEJs (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:09:48 -0400 Message-ID: <3F7A5387.4040702@cyberone.com.au> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:09:43 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030827 Debian/1.4-3 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray J. Root" CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Con Kolivas , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 2.6.0-test6 scheduling(?) oddness References: <20031001032238.GB1416@Master> <3F7A534B.3020401@cyberone.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3F7A534B.3020401@cyberone.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Murray J. Root wrote: > >> P4 2G >> 1G PC2700 RAM >> ASUS P4S533 >> Large tasks (like raytrace rendering) take double the amount of time >> they used >> to take, although the system is nicer to the user while they run. In >> 2.6.0-test5 had a little trouble with it and Piggin pointed me to a >> patch that >> fixed it and is now in -test6, however the patch didn't slow the >> rendering as >> much as it does in test6. (Con Koliva's patch, I believe it was). >> For example - rendering an image that took 15 minutes in 2.5.65 takes >> 20 minutes in 2.6.0-test5 (with patch) and 30 minutes in 2.6.0-test6 >> (raw from >> kernel.org). Same config options (everything I use builtin - no >> modules). >> >> A new issue (which also doesn't happen in -test5 with the patch): >> When running cpu intense tasks, new (large) tasks will not start till >> the first >> one finishes. >> For example, using POV-Ray 3.5 to render an image that takes 30 >> minutes when it >> is the only program running, start oowriter. >> The render finishes in the same 30 minutes, then oowriter starts. >> oowriter takes about 3 seconds to load if no rendering is going on. >> I can use apps that are already open but can't start new ones while >> rendering. >> In 2.6.0-test5 (with patch) opening oowriter while rendering takes >> about 1 minute. >> In 2.5.65 opening oowriter while rendering takes about 2 minutes (and >> X gets >> very hard to use till oowriter is completely done opening). >> > > Hi Murray! > Con Kolivas' patch has been included in test6. You might have tried that > or maybe my patch? > > Anyway, lets just clarify your report: > 1 CPU, hyperthreading on or off? > > test5 interactivity under load isn't as good as test6. > > povray takes 150% more time in test6 vs tset5. How many compute threads > does povray use? Is anything else running? Sorry, 150% _the_ time, 50% more time. > > > oowriter takes 3 seconds to load when nothing is running > oowriter takes 30(or more) minutes to load when povray is runnnig, takes > 1 minute in test5 plus patch (could you tell us exactly what the patch > is) > >