From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261908AbTJAEgD (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:36:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261914AbTJAEgD (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:36:03 -0400 Received: from stroke.of.genius.brain.org ([206.80.113.1]:477 "EHLO stroke.of.genius.brain.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261908AbTJAEf6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:35:58 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:35:50 -0400 From: "Murray J. Root" To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.0-test6 scheduling(?) oddness Message-ID: <20031001043550.GC1416@Master> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20031001032238.GB1416@Master> <3F7A534B.3020401@cyberone.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F7A534B.3020401@cyberone.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:08:43PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Murray J. Root wrote: > > >P4 2G > >1G PC2700 RAM > >ASUS P4S533 > > > >Large tasks (like raytrace rendering) take double the amount of time they > >used > >to take, although the system is nicer to the user while they run. In > >2.6.0-test5 had a little trouble with it and Piggin pointed me to a patch > >that > >fixed it and is now in -test6, however the patch didn't slow the rendering > >as > >much as it does in test6. (Con Koliva's patch, I believe it was). > >For example - rendering an image that took 15 minutes in 2.5.65 takes 20 > >minutes in 2.6.0-test5 (with patch) and 30 minutes in 2.6.0-test6 (raw from > >kernel.org). Same config options (everything I use builtin - no modules). > > > >A new issue (which also doesn't happen in -test5 with the patch): > >When running cpu intense tasks, new (large) tasks will not start till the > >first > >one finishes. > >For example, using POV-Ray 3.5 to render an image that takes 30 minutes > >when it > >is the only program running, start oowriter. > >The render finishes in the same 30 minutes, then oowriter starts. > >oowriter takes about 3 seconds to load if no rendering is going on. > >I can use apps that are already open but can't start new ones while > >rendering. > >In 2.6.0-test5 (with patch) opening oowriter while rendering takes about 1 > >minute. > >In 2.5.65 opening oowriter while rendering takes about 2 minutes (and X > >gets > >very hard to use till oowriter is completely done opening). > > > > Hi Murray! > Con Kolivas' patch has been included in test6. You might have tried that > or maybe my patch? It was Con Kolivas' patch - I never got to yours since his fixed my -test5 issue. > Anyway, lets just clarify your report: > 1 CPU, hyperthreading on or off? 1 CPU, no ht > test5 interactivity under load isn't as good as test6. Hard to measure - they're both good from the user's point of view. > povray takes 150% more time in test6 vs tset5. How many compute threads > does povray use? Is anything else running? povray uses 1 process to compute. As far as I can tell it's not threading at all. as for other things running - X with fluxbox 0.1.14 is the only constant. I vary other apps to test but there seems to be no influence unless the other app is also a cpu/memory hog. > oowriter takes 3 seconds to load when nothing is running correct > oowriter takes 30(or more) minutes to load when povray is runnnig, takes > 1 minute in test5 plus patch (could you tell us exactly what the patch > is) that 1 minute in test5 is *while rendering* the same image I'm rendering in this test. with no load in test5 oowriter takes about 3 seconds to load. oowriter doesn't load at all until the render is finished. 30 minutes was the image I was working with. tried it with a 1 hour render, and oowriter didn't start till the render finished. -- Murray J. Root