public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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