Re: interactive task starvation

Ingo Molnar
2006-03-21T11:21:00Z

* Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 10:14:22AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 08:51:38AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 07:47 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > > Hi Mike,
> > > >
> > > > Greetings!
> > >
> > > Thanks for the details,
> > > I'll try to find some time to test your code quickly. If this fixes this
> > > long standing problem, we should definitely try to get it into 2.6.17 !
> >
> > the time window is quickly closing for that to happen though.
>
> Ingo, Mike,
>
> it's a great day :-)
>
> Right now, I'm typing this mail from my notebook which has 8 instances
> of my exploit running in background. Previously, 4 of them were enough
> on this machine to create pauses of up to 31 seconds. Right now, I can
> type normally, and I simply can say that my exploit has no effect
> anymore ! It's just consuming CPU and nothing else. I also tried to
> write 0 to grace_g[12] and I find it even more responsive with 0 in
> those values. I've not had time to do more extensive tests, but I can
> assure you that the problem is clearly solved for me. I'd like Grant
> to test ssh on his firewall with it too.

great work by Mike! One detail: i'd like there to be just one default
throttling value, i.e. no grace_g tunables [so that we have just one
default scheduler behavior]. Is the default grace_g[12] setting good
enough for your workload?

Ingo