From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org>
Cc: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
bugsplatter@gmail.com
Subject: Re: interactive task starvation
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 05:18:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1143001081.11047.61.camel@homer> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060321175004.GA27303@w.ods.org>
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 18:50 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 02:20:10AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Wednesday 22 March 2006 01:17, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > I actually believe the same effect can be had by a tiny
> > > modification to enable/disable the estimator anyway.
> >
> > Just for argument's sake it would look something like this.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Con
> > ---
> > Add sysctl to enable/disable cpu scheduer interactivity estimator
>
> At least, in May 2005, the equivalent of this patch I tested on
> 2.6.11.7 considerably improved responsiveness, but there was still
> this very annoying slowdown when the load increased. vmstat delays
> increased by one second every 10 processes. I retried again around
> 2.6.14 a few months ago, and it was the same. Perhaps Mike's code
> and other changes in 2.6-mm really fix the initial problem (array
> switching ?) and then only the interactivity boost is causing the
> remaining trouble ?
The slowdown you see is because a timeslice is 100ms, and that patch
turned the scheduler into a non-preempting pure round-robin slug.
Array switching is only one aspect, and one I hadn't thought of as I was
tinkering with my patches, I discovered that aspect by accident.
My code does a few things, and all of them are part of the picture. One
of them is to deal with excessive interactive boost. Another is to
tighten timeslice enforcement, and another is to close the fundamental
hole in the concept sleep_avg. That hole is causing the majority of the
problems that crop up, the interactivity bits only make it worse. The
hole is this. If priority is based solely upon % sleep time, even if
there is no interactive boost, even if accumulation vs consumption is
1:1, if you sleep 51% of the time, you will inevitably rise to max
priority, and be able to use 49% of the CPU at max priority forever.
The current heuristics make that very close to but not quite 95%.
The fact that we don't have _horrendous_ problems shows that the basic
concept of sleep_avg is pretty darn good. Close the hole in any way you
can think of (mine is one), and it's excellent.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-22 4:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 112+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-07 23:13 [PATCH] mm: yield during swap prefetching Con Kolivas
2006-03-07 23:26 ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-07 23:32 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08 0:05 ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-08 0:51 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08 1:11 ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-08 1:12 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08 1:19 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08 1:23 ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-08 1:28 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08 2:08 ` Lee Revell
2006-03-08 2:12 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08 2:18 ` Lee Revell
2006-03-08 2:22 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08 2:27 ` Lee Revell
2006-03-08 2:30 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08 2:52 ` [ck] " André Goddard Rosa
2006-03-08 3:03 ` Lee Revell
2006-03-08 3:05 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08 21:07 ` Zan Lynx
2006-03-08 23:00 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08 23:48 ` Zan Lynx
2006-03-09 0:07 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-09 3:13 ` Zan Lynx
2006-03-09 4:08 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-09 4:54 ` Lee Revell
2006-03-08 7:51 ` Jan Knutar
2006-03-08 8:39 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-09 8:57 ` Helge Hafting
2006-03-09 9:08 ` Con Kolivas
[not found] ` <4410AFD3.7090505@bigpond.net.au>
2006-03-10 9:01 ` [ck] " Andreas Mohr
2006-03-10 9:11 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08 22:24 ` Pavel Machek
2006-03-09 2:22 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-09 2:30 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-09 2:57 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-09 9:11 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08 13:36 ` [ck] " Con Kolivas
2006-03-17 9:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-03-17 10:46 ` interactive task starvation Mike Galbraith
2006-03-17 17:15 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-20 7:09 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-20 10:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-03-21 6:47 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-03-21 7:51 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-21 9:13 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-03-21 9:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-03-21 11:15 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-03-21 11:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-03-21 11:53 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-21 13:10 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-21 13:13 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-21 13:33 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-21 13:37 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-21 13:44 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-03-21 13:45 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-21 14:01 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-21 14:17 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-21 15:20 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-21 17:50 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-03-22 4:18 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2006-03-21 17:51 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-21 13:38 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-03-21 13:48 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-21 12:07 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-21 12:59 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-03-21 13:24 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-21 13:53 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-21 14:17 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-21 14:19 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-21 14:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-03-21 14:28 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-21 14:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-03-21 14:28 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-21 14:30 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-21 14:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-03-21 14:44 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-03-21 14:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-03-29 3:01 ` Lee Revell
2006-03-29 5:56 ` Ray Lee
2006-03-29 6:16 ` Lee Revell
2006-03-21 14:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-21 14:39 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-21 14:39 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-03-21 18:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2006-03-21 19:32 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-03-21 21:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2006-03-21 22:51 ` Peter Williams
2006-03-22 3:49 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-22 3:59 ` Peter Williams
2006-03-22 12:14 ` [interbench numbers] " Mike Galbraith
2006-03-22 20:27 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-23 3:22 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-23 5:43 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-23 5:53 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-23 11:07 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-24 0:21 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-24 5:02 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-24 5:04 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-17 12:38 ` [PATCH] sched: activate SCHED BATCH expired Con Kolivas
2006-03-17 13:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-03-17 13:26 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-17 13:36 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-17 13:46 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-17 13:51 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-17 14:11 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-17 14:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-03-17 13:47 ` [ck] " Andreas Mohr
2006-03-17 13:59 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-17 14:06 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-08 8:48 ` [ck] Re: [PATCH] mm: yield during swap prefetching Andreas Mohr
2006-03-08 8:52 ` Con Kolivas
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=1143001081.11047.61.camel@homer \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=bugsplatter@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=willy@w.ods.org \
/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