From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com (e5.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e5.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0900FDDE02 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:13:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m0Q9DBoo006184 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:13:11 -0500 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m0Q9DBPs242818 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:13:11 -0500 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m0Q9DBY5029185 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:13:11 -0500 Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:56:45 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: ppc32: Weird process scheduling behaviour with 2.6.24-rc Message-ID: <20080126092644.GA1044@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1201090699.9052.39.camel@thor.sulgenrain.local> <1201092131.6341.51.camel@lappy> <1201244082.6815.128.camel@pasglop> <1201244618.6815.130.camel@pasglop> <1201245901.6815.133.camel@pasglop> <1201251000.6341.108.camel@lappy> <20080126040734.GA21365@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1201320834.6815.160.camel@pasglop> <20080126050637.GA14177@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1201324552.6815.165.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1201324552.6815.165.camel@pasglop> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Michel=2ED=E4nzer_=3Cmichel=40tungstengraphics=2Ecom=3E?=.=?iso-8859-1?B?QHNub3d5LmluLmlibS5jb20=?=@snowy.in.ibm.com, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Michel=2ED=E4nzer?= Reply-To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 04:15:52PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > Michel, > > You had reported that commit 810e95ccd58d91369191aa4ecc9e6d4a10d8d0c8 > > was the cause for this bad behavior. Do you see behavior change (from good->bad) > > immediately after applying that patch during your bisect process? > > Also Michel, double check your .config in both cases. And also Michel whether CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED + CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED gives more or less same desktop exp as !CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED pls! > > I would prefer to have CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED + > > CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED on by default. Can you pls let me know how you > > think is the desktop experience with that combination? > > I'm going to give that a try but unfortunately, it will have to wait > until I'm back from LCA in a bit more than a week. -- Regards, vatsa