Re: interactive task starvation

Con Kolivas
2006-03-21T14:28:30Z

On Wednesday 22 March 2006 01:25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:
> > What you're fixing with unfairness is worth pursuing. The 'ls' issue
> > just blows my mind though for reasons I've just said. Where are the
> > magic cycles going when nothing else is running that make it take ten
> > times longer?
>
> i believe such artifacts are due to array switches not happening (due to
> the workload getting queued back to rq->active, not rq->expired), and
> 'ls' only gets a timeslice once in a while, every STARVATION_LIMIT
> times. I.e. such workloads penalize the CPU-bound 'ls' process quite
> heavily.

With nothing else running on the machine it should still get all the cpu no
matter which array it's on though.

Con