[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070418221432.e4dbcf4f.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:14:32 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair
Scheduler [CFS]
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:18:07 +0200 Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
> And yes, by fairly, I mean fairly among all threads as a base resource
> class, because that's what Linux has always done
Yes, there are potential compatibility problems. Example: a machine with
100 busy httpd processes and suddenly a big gzip starts up from console or
cron.
Under current kernels, that gzip will take ages and the httpds will take a
1% slowdown, which may well be exactly the behaviour which is desired.
If we were to schedule by UID then the gzip suddenly gets 50% of the CPU
and those httpd's all take a 50% hit, which could be quite serious.
That's simple to fix via nicing, but people have to know to do that, and
there will be a transition period where some disruption is possible.
-
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