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: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 10:50:56 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060102105056.5e6d5205@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20060102092903.00bde090@pop.gmx.net>

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:15:43 +0100
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:

> >This is the bad situation I hate: some cpu-eaters that eat all the CPU
> >time BUT have a really good priority only because they sleeps a bit.
> 
> Yup, your proggy fools the interactivity estimator quite well.  This 
> problem was addressed a long time ago, and thought to be more or less 
> cured.  Guess not.

In my original real-life test case (transcode) I found that the problem
started with the removing of "interactive_credit":

http://groups.google.com/group/fa.linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/6aa5c93c379ae9e1/a9a83db6446edaf7?lnk=st&q=insubject%3Asched+author%3APaolo+author%3AOrnati&rnum=1&hl=en#a9a83db6446edaf7

This is not actually true... in fact that change only unhidden the
problem for that particular test-case.

With my little proggy I'm now able to reproduce the problem even with
"interactive_credit" applied (for example with a 2.6.10 kernel).

Said this, and since "nicksched" doesn't have this problem at all, it
is an ingosched (and others as well) problem.

-- 
	Paolo Ornati
	Linux 2.6.15-rc7-plugsched on x86_64

  reply	other threads:[~2006-01-02  9:50 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
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 [this message]
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=20060102105056.5e6d5205@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