From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262419AbTJFRDK (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:03:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262449AbTJFRDK (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:03:10 -0400 Received: from stroke.of.genius.brain.org ([206.80.113.1]:61921 "EHLO stroke.of.genius.brain.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262419AbTJFRDC (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:03:02 -0400 Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:02:42 -0400 From: "Murray J. Root" To: bill davidsen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.0-test6 scheduling(?) oddness Message-ID: <20031006170242.GA23474@Master> Mail-Followup-To: bill davidsen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20031001032238.GB1416@Master> <20031001051008.GD1416@Master> <3F7B5584.6070604@wmich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 02:29:31AM +0000, bill davidsen wrote: > In article <3F7B5584.6070604@wmich.edu>, > Ed Sweetman wrote: > | bill davidsen wrote: > > | > I wish I could just write off programs like that, but if a program is > | > running, and doing legitimate system calls, and it stops running > | > (totally or usefully), I'd like to be sure that the kernel doesn't have > | > some unintended behaviour before I just pass on the program. > | > > | > Particularly when OO is what allows lots of people to avoid running that > | > other operating system. > | > | it isn't doing something legitimate since as he said, it was the only > | program that exibited the behavior. Perhaps openoffice was exploiting a > | characteristic of the old schedular to increase it's performance, > | perhaps it's just the way they ended up coding it. But if it's the only > | one then that's that. > > I see nothing to indicate that any illegal system calls were made, in > what way is it not doing something legitimate? > > One program which has always worked suddenly stopping is a symptom of a > problem, and assuming that there is no problem seems optimistic. > Particularly when it works on BSD, Solaris, all previous Linux and even > Windows. > > If this is the sched_yeild() stuff again, I thought that was beaten into > the ground before, and it was agreed that SUS allows it to work the way > it has always worked and the way it works elsewhere. Hopefully this is > not the reason performance is so grim, and a solution can be found. > > BTW: I'm told that StarOffice (commercial release) also doesn't work > usefully on test6, can anyone confirm? The test system is not overly > stable and I don't trust negative results there. OOo works just fine - it just won't *start* while POVRay is rendering. Once it's started it runs fine, even when rendering. -- Murray J. Root