From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758699AbZEDSAA (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 14:00:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755811AbZEDR7v (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 13:59:51 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:52125 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751282AbZEDR7t (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 13:59:49 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19WBhs8L8RWXkWWrsorSvbaLSrd9DorPUUB6kzQua 3QqIOIsbhZj+Kd Subject: Re: CFS not suitable for desktop computers From: Mike Galbraith To: Nico =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sch=FCmann?= Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <49FF06D0.80109@nico22.de> References: <49FDEFD1.8020608@nico22.de> <1241424835.26855.102.camel@marge.simson.net> <49FF06D0.80109@nico22.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 19:59:43 +0200 Message-Id: <1241459983.5462.70.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.55 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 17:16 +0200, Nico Schümann wrote: > Thank you Ray Lee and Mike Galbraith for your responses, I ran the > script and attached its gathered information. > > Mike Galbraith wrote: > > How hard is hard? Can you describe the loads you're having trouble > > with, and the hardware you're running them on? > > > > > I could reproduce "hard" load by just compiling the linux kernel, make > -j3 while reading mails with Thunderbird, which is not that hard > foreground load. Thunderbird starts reacting really slowly while compiling. > > My system has a 1,3 GHz AMD Athlon CPU (32 bits) and 1 GB of RAM. Now > you will say: That is not very much. Of course it is not, but with the > old scheduler, the system felt way faster, so it seemed to be enough for > compiling and reading mails. Hm. The load isn't extreme, but it appears to me that between X and Thunderbird, CPU demand is high enough that you WILL feel the slowdown when you toss in three competing CPU hogs plus other system activity all on one core. > I hope you can find useful information in the attached log, I enabled > SCHED_DEBUG and SCHEDSTATS, if you need any more information, just ask > me, I will try to answer. I'll look closer tomorrow (ill). For now, how much CPU does X/Thunderbird consume without the kbuild? (I know this isn't what you want to hear, but SCHED_IDLE is a major case of happiness for heavy lifting background loads, especially so on UP.) -Mike