[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:49:01 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
paulmck@...ibm.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, dipankar@...ibm.com,
dino@...ibm.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Cpu-hotplug: Using the Process Freezer (try2)
* Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 12:04:31PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > yeah, i think you are right - and the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE thing is
> > not only quite complex, it also breaks the symmetry of freezer use
> > (sw-suspend obviously cannot freeze uninterruptible tasks). We
> > should watch whether the current latency of freezing is good enough
> > in practice.
>
> Ok. Do you have any specific tests in mind which I can run and post
> the numbers?
>
> As of now, I've been stressing the system with (kernbench + ondemand
> governor) and timing the hotplug operation.
i suspect a fork-intensive application like kernbench should be close to
the worst-case already. A more IO-intensive workload would maximize the
uninterruptible-sleep latencies perhaps?
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists