From: "Mike Galbraith" <EFAULT@gmx.de>
To: "Tim Connors" <tconnors@astro.swin.edu.au>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.5.47 scheduler problems?
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:52:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <005b01c28ef0$abdd56a0$6400a8c0@mikeg> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Pine.LNX.4.33.0211181849240.26151-100000@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Connors" <tconnors@astro.swin.edu.au>
To: "Mike Galbraith" <EFAULT@gmx.de>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: 2.5.47 scheduler problems?
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > > If I do the same in 2.5.47, I have no control of my box.
Setting
> > all tasks
> > > > to SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR prior to starting make -j10 bzImage, I
can
> > regain
> > > > control, but interactivity under load is basically not present.
> > >
> > > Funny that.
> > >
> > > > I used to be able to wave a window poorly at make -j25 (swapping
> > heftily),
> > > > fairly smoothly at make -j20, and smoothly at make -j15 or
below.
> > This
> > > > with no SCHED_RR/SCHED_FIFO. (I haven't done much testing like
this
> > in
> > > > quite a while though)
> > >
> > > Perhaps you should consider buying an extra 29 CPU's for you
desktop?
> >
> > I have neither the need for 30 CPUs, nor the cash to pay for such a
> > beast :)
> >
> > I gather you think my test is silly?
>
> Well, yes, 30 processes at a time on a single CPU does seem a bit
silly -
> given that (under the old system), you would not expect X to get more
than
> 3% of the CPU time.
I don't try -j30 with X/KDE running.. that's much too heavy for my
little box. The whole point of doing -j30 on my box without X/KDE is
that it juuuust fills up capacity. It generally adds a minute to build
time despite quite hefty swapping. With aa kernels or heavily twiddled
stock kernels, it's more like 30 seconds. (with new gcc, -j30 is way
too much too.. oink oink;)
> Also sceduling normal processes (ie, not real-time processes) as
RR/FIFO
> seemed also pretty bad.
That was only to see if I _could_ get some CPU, and with (only:) 10
copies of gcc running.
>
> However....
>
> But I have to now admit that I haven't yet played with 2.5.47
seriously,
> and wansn't aware of the problems which Andrew just posted.
>
> mea culpa.
>
>
> --
> TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-11-18 10:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-11-18 6:20 2.5.47 scheduler problems? Mike Galbraith
2002-11-18 6:51 ` Tim Connors
2002-11-18 7:08 ` Andrew Morton
2002-11-18 7:35 ` Mike Galbraith
2002-11-18 7:29 ` Mike Galbraith
2002-11-18 7:53 ` Tim Connors
2002-11-18 10:52 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-11-22 5:41 Jim Houston
2002-11-22 11:07 ` Mike Galbraith
2002-11-22 12:51 ` Mike Galbraith
2002-11-22 14:04 ` Mike Galbraith
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='005b01c28ef0$abdd56a0$6400a8c0@mikeg' \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tconnors@astro.swin.edu.au \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox