[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708011346510.1817@scrub.home>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 14:21:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CFS review
Hi,
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > [...] e.g. in this example there are three tasks that run only for
> > about 1ms every 3ms, but they get far more time than should have
> > gotten fairly:
> >
> > 4544 roman 20 0 1796 520 432 S 32.1 0.4 0:21.08 lt
> > 4545 roman 20 0 1796 344 256 R 32.1 0.3 0:21.07 lt
> > 4546 roman 20 0 1796 344 256 R 31.7 0.3 0:21.07 lt
> > 4547 roman 20 0 1532 272 216 R 3.3 0.2 0:01.94 l
>
> Mike and me have managed to reproduce similarly looking 'top' output,
> but it takes some effort: we had to deliberately run a non-TSC
> sched_clock(), CONFIG_HZ=100, !CONFIG_NO_HZ and !CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS.
I used my old laptop for these tests, where tsc is indeed disabled due to
instability. Otherwise the kernel was configured with CONFIG_HZ=1000.
> in that case 'top' accounting symptoms similar to the above are not due
> to the scheduler starvation you suspected, but due the effect of a
> low-resolution scheduler clock and a tightly coupled timer/scheduler
> tick to it.
Well, it magnifies the rounding problems in CFS.
I mainly wanted to test a little the behaviour of CFS and I thought a saw
patch which enabled the use of TSC in these cases, so I didn't check
sched_clock().
Anyway, I want to point out that this wasn't the main focus of what I
wrote.
bye, Roman
-
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