[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070414175433.GA17527@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:54:33 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> > Thinking about it, I don't know if there are calls to schedule()
> > while switching from tty1 to tty2. Alt-F2 had no effect anymore, and
> > "chvt 2" simply blocked. It would have been possible that a
> > schedule() call somewhere got starved due to the load, I don't know.
>
> It looks like there is a call to schedule_work.
so this goes over keventd, right?
> There are two pieces of the path. If you are switching in and out of a
> tty controlled by something like X. User space has to grant
> permission before the operation happens. Where there isn't a gate
> keeper I know it is cheaper but I don't know by how much, I suspect
> there is still a schedule happening in there.
Could keventd perhaps be starved? Willy, to exclude this possibility,
could you perhaps chrt keventd to RT priority? If events/0 is PID 5 then
the command to set it to SCHED_FIFO:50 would be:
chrt -f -p 50 5
but ... events/0 is reniced to -5 by default, so it should definitely
not be starved.
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