public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: [SCHED] wrong priority calc - SIMPLE test case
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:51:53 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200601132151.55742.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060113114607.54c83fc8@localhost>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2657 bytes --]

On Friday 13 January 2006 21:46, Paolo Ornati wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:13:11 +1100
>
> Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:
> > Can you try the following patch on 2.6.15 please? I'm interested in how
> > adversely this affects interactive performance as well as whether it
> > helps your test case.
>
> "./a.out 5000 & ./a.out 5237 & ./a.out 5331 &"
> "mount space/; sync; sleep 1; time dd if=space/bigfile of=/dev/null
> bs=1M count=256; umount space/"
>
>   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
>  5445 paolo     16   0  2396  288  228 R 34.8  0.1   0:05.84 a.out
>  5446 paolo     15   0  2396  288  228 S 32.8  0.1   0:05.53 a.out
>  5444 paolo     16   0  2392  288  228 R 31.3  0.1   0:05.99 a.out
>  5443 paolo     16   0 10416 1104  848 R  0.2  0.2   0:00.01 top
>  5451 paolo     15   0  4948 1468  372 D  0.2  0.3   0:00.01 dd
>
> DD test takes ~20 s (instead of 8s).
>
> As you can see DD priority is now very good (15) but it still suffers
> because also my test programs get good priority (15/16).
>
>
> Things are BETTER on the real test case (transcode): this is because
> transcode usually gets priority 16 and "dd" gets 15... so dd is quite
> happy.

This seems a reasonable compromise. In your "test app" case you are using 
quirky code to reproduce the worst case scenario. Given that with your quirky 
setup you are using 3 cpu hogs (effectively) then slowing down dd from 8s to 
20s seems an appropriate slowdown (as opposed to the many minutes you were 
getting previously).

See my followup patches that I have posted following "[PATCH 0/5] sched - 
interactivity updates". The first 3 patches are what you tested. These 
patches are being put up for testing hopefully in -mm.

> BUT what is STRANGE is this: usually transcode is stuck to priority 16
> using about 88% of the CPU, but sometimes (don't know how to reproduce
> it) its priority grows up to 25 and then stay to 25.
>
> When transcode priority is 25 the DD test is obviously happy: in
> particular 2 things can happen (this is expected because I've observed
> this thing before):
>
> 1) priority of transcode stay to 25 (when the file transcode is
> reading from, through pipes, IS cached).
>
> 2) CPU usage and priority of transcode go down (the file transcode is
> reading from ISN'T cached and DD massive disk usage interferes with
> this reading). When DD finish trancode priority go back to 25.

I suspect this is entirely dependent on the balance between time spent reading 
on disk, waiting on pipe and so on.

Thanks for your test case and testing!

Cheers,
Con

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2006-01-13 10:52 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
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 [this message]
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=200601132151.55742.kernel@kolivas.org \
    --to=kernel@kolivas.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=ornati@fastwebnet.it \
    --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