From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: Paolo Ornati <ornati@fastwebnet.it>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [SCHED] Totally WRONG prority calculation with specific test-case (since 2.6.10-bk12)
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:26:58 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200512281027.00252.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051227224846.6edcff88@localhost>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3885 bytes --]
On Wednesday 28 December 2005 08:48, Paolo Ornati wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:09:18 +0100
>
> Paolo Ornati <ornati@fastwebnet.it> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've found an easy-to-reproduce-for-me test case that shows a totally
> > wrong priority calculation: basically a CPU-intensitive process gets
> > better priority than a disk-intensitive one (dd if=bigfile
> > of=/dev/null ...).
> >
> > Seems impossible, isn't it?
> >
> > ---- THE NUMBERS with 2.6.15-rc7 -----
> >
> > The test-case is the Xvid encoding of dvd-ripped track with transcode
> > (using "dvd::rip" interface). The copied-and-pasted command line is
> > this:
> >
> > mkdir -m 0775 -p '/home/paolo/tmp/test/tmp' &&
> > cd /home/paolo/tmp/test/tmp && dr_exec transcode -H 10 -a 2 -x vob,null
> > -i /home/paolo/tmp/test/vob/003 -w 1198,50 -b 128,0,0 -s 1.972
> > --a52_drc_off -f 25 -Y 52,8,52,8 -B 27,10,8 -R 1 -y xvid4,null
> > -o /dev/null --print_status 20 && echo DVDRIP_SUCCESS mkdir -m 0775 -p
> > '/home/paolo/tmp/test/tmp' && cd /home/paolo/tmp/test/tmp && dr_exec
> > transcode -H 10 -a 2 -x vob -i /home/paolo/tmp/test/vob/003 -w 1198,50
> > -b 128,0,0 -s 1.972 --a52_drc_off -f 25 -Y 52,8,52,8 -B 27,10,8 -R 2 -y
> > xvid4 -o /home/paolo/tmp/test/avi/003/test-003.avi --print_status 20 &&
> > echo DVDRIP_SUCCESS
> >
> >
> > Here there is a TOP snapshot while running it:
> >
> > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> > 5721 paolo 16 0 115m 18m 2428 R 84.4 3.7 0:15.11 transcode
> > 5736 paolo 25 0 50352 4516 1912 R 8.4 0.9 0:01.53 tcdecode
> > 5725 paolo 15 0 115m 18m 2428 S 4.6 3.7 0:00.84 transcode
> > 5738 paolo 18 0 115m 18m 2428 S 0.8 3.7 0:00.15 transcode
> > 5734 paolo 25 0 20356 1140 920 S 0.6 0.2 0:00.12 tcdemux
> > 5731 paolo 25 0 47312 2540 1996 R 0.4 0.5 0:00.08 tcdecode
> > 5319 root 15 0 166m 16m 2584 S 0.2 3.2 0:25.06 X
> > 5444 paolo 16 0 87116 22m 15m R 0.2 4.6 0:04.05 konsole
> > 5716 paolo 16 0 10424 1160 876 R 0.2 0.2 0:00.06 top
> > 5735 paolo 25 0 22364 1436 932 S 0.2 0.3 0:00.01 tcextract
> >
> >
> > DD running alone:
> >
> > paolo@tux /mnt $ mount space/; time dd if=space/bigfile of=/dev/null
> > bs=1M count=128; umount space/ 128+0 records in
> > 128+0 records out
> >
> > real 0m4.052s
> > user 0m0.000s
> > sys 0m0.209s
> >
> > DD while transcoding:
> >
> > paolo@tux /mnt $ mount space/; time dd if=space/bigfile of=/dev/null
> > bs=1M count=128; umount space/ 128+0 records in
> > 128+0 records out
> >
> > real 0m26.121s
> > user 0m0.001s
> > sys 0m0.255s
Looking at your top output I see that transcode command generates 7 processes
all likely to be using cpu, and your DD slowdown is almost 7 times... I
assume it all goes away if you nice the transcode up by 3 or more.
> Hello Con and Ingo... I've found that the above problem goes away
> by reverting this:
>
> http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/cset@41e054c6pwNQXzErMxvfh4IpLPXA5A?
>nav=index.html|src/|src/include|src/include/linux|related/include/linux/sche
>d.h
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> [PATCH] sched: remove_interactive_credit
The issue is that the scheduler interactivity estimator is a state machine and
can be fooled to some degree, and a cpu intensive task that just happens to
sleep a little bit gets significantly better priority than one that is fully
cpu bound all the time. Reverting that change is not a solution because it
can still be fooled by the same process sleeping lots for a few seconds or so
at startup and then changing to the cpu mostly-sleeping slightly behaviour.
This "fluctuating" behaviour is in my opinion worse which is why I removed
it.
Cheers,
Con
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-12-27 23:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-27 18:09 [SCHED] Totally WRONG prority calculation with specific test-case (since 2.6.10-bk12) Paolo Ornati
2005-12-27 21:48 ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-27 23:26 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2005-12-28 11:01 ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-28 11:19 ` Con Kolivas
2005-12-28 11:35 ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-28 17:23 ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-28 17:39 ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-30 13:52 ` [SCHED] wrong priority calc - SIMPLE test case Paolo Ornati
2005-12-31 2:06 ` Peter Williams
2005-12-31 10:34 ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-31 10:52 ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-31 11:12 ` Con Kolivas
2005-12-31 13:44 ` Peter Williams
2005-12-31 16:31 ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-31 22:04 ` Peter Williams
2005-12-31 8:13 ` Mike Galbraith
2005-12-31 11:00 ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-31 15:11 ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-31 16:37 ` Mike Galbraith
2005-12-31 17:24 ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-31 17:42 ` Paolo Ornati
2006-01-01 11:39 ` Paolo Ornati
2006-01-02 9:15 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-02 9:50 ` Paolo Ornati
2006-01-09 11:11 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-09 15:52 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-09 16:08 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-09 18:14 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-09 20:00 ` Paolo Ornati
2006-01-09 20:23 ` Paolo Ornati
2006-01-10 7:08 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-10 12:07 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-10 12:56 ` Paolo Ornati
2006-01-10 13:01 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-10 13:53 ` Paolo Ornati
2006-01-10 15:18 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-13 1:13 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-13 1:32 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-13 10:46 ` Paolo Ornati
2006-01-13 10:51 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-13 13:01 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-13 14:34 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-13 16:15 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-01-14 2:05 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-14 2:56 ` Mike Galbraith
2005-12-27 23:59 ` [SCHED] Totally WRONG prority calculation with specific test-case (since 2.6.10-bk12) Peter Williams
2005-12-28 10:20 ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-28 13:38 ` Peter Williams
2005-12-28 19:45 ` Paolo Ornati
2005-12-29 3:13 ` Nick Piggin
2005-12-29 3:35 ` Peter Williams
2005-12-29 8:11 ` Nick Piggin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200512281027.00252.kernel@kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=ornati@fastwebnet.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox