From: Paolo Ornati <ornati@fastwebnet.it>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: [SCHED] wrong priority calc - SIMPLE test case
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:11:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051231161134.4236c37a@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20051231090255.00bede00@pop.gmx.net>
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:13:24 +0100
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
> Ingo seems to have done something in 2.6.15-rc7-rt1 which defeats your
> little proggy. Taking a quick peek at the rt scheduler changes, nothing
> poked me in the eye, but by golly, I can't get this kernel to act up,
> whereas 2.6.14-virgin does.
Ok, I've sucessfully booted 2.6.15-rc7-rt1 (I think that I was
having troubles with Thread Softirqs and/or Thread Hardirqs).
First thing: I've preemption disabled, but it shouldn't matter too much
since we are talking about priority calculation...
1) My program isn't defeated at all. If I start it with the same args
of the previous examples it "seems" defeated, but it isn't.
Lowering the "cpu burn argument" I can reproduce the problem again:
"./a.out 200 & ./a.out 333"
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5607 paolo 15 0 2396 320 252 R 56.1 0.1 0:06.79 a.out
5606 paolo 15 0 2396 324 252 R 38.7 0.1 0:04.55 a.out
1 root 16 0 2556 552 468 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.28 init
2) Priority fluctuation - very interesting: playing with the only arg
my program has I've found this:
./a.out 200
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5628 paolo 15 0 2392 320 252 R 48.5 0.1 0:18.34 a.out
./a.out 300
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5633 paolo 15 0 2392 324 252 S 50.1 0.1 0:09.42 a.out
./a.out 400
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5634 paolo 15 0 2392 320 252 S 66.7 0.1 0:06.31 a.out
./a.out 500
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5638 paolo 25 0 2396 320 252 R 67.7 0.1 0:14.78 a.out
./a.out 700
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5640 paolo 15 0 2392 320 252 S 80.1 0.1 0:25.88 a.out
./a.out 800
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5644 paolo 17 0 2396 320 252 R 79.6 0.1 0:26.54 a.out
In the "./a.out 500" case, the priority starts at something like 16 and
then slowly go up to 25 _BUT_ if I start my DD test my cpu-eater
priority goes quickly to 16!
The real world test case (transcode) is a bit harder to describe: its
priority usually goes up to 25, sometimes I've seen it fluctuating a
bit (like go to 19 and then back to 25).
When I start my DD test I've seen basically 2 different behaviours:
A) good
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5788 paolo 25 0 114m 18m 2440 R 82.2 3.7 0:10.16 transcode
5804 paolo 15 0 49860 4500 1896 S 8.5 0.9 0:00.99 tcdecode
5808 paolo 18 0 4952 1520 412 D 5.0 0.3 0:00.36 dd
B) bad
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5743 paolo 18 0 114m 18m 2440 R 75.0 3.7 0:26.79 transcode
5759 paolo 15 0 49864 4500 1896 S 7.8 0.9 0:02.71 tcdecode
5750 paolo 16 0 19840 1136 916 S 1.5 0.2 0:00.23 tcdemux
5201 root 15 0 167m 17m 3336 S 0.8 3.5 0:19.38 X
5764 paolo 18 0 4948 1520 412 R 0.7 0.3 0:00.04 dd
Sometimes happens A and sometimes happens B...
PS: probably all these numbers aren't 100% reproducible... this is what
happens on my PC.
--
Paolo Ornati
Linux 2.6.15-rc7-rt1 on x86_64
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-12-31 15:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ 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
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 [this message]
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
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-01-27 16:57 [SCHED] wrong priority calc - SIMPLE test case Con Kolivas
2006-01-27 20:06 ` MIke Galbraith
2006-01-27 23:18 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-28 0:01 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-28 3:43 ` MIke Galbraith
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=20051231161134.4236c37a@localhost \
--to=ornati@fastwebnet.it \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
/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