Con Kolivas wrote:
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 05:21, Mark Lord wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
Can you try the new version of RSDL. Assuming it doesn't oops on you it
has some accounting bugfixes which may have been biting you.
Retesting today with 2.6.21-rc3-git7 + 2.6.21-rc3-sched-rsdl-0.30.patch.

Still not pleasant to use the GUI with a kernel build (-j1 or -j2)
happening unless the build is manually "nice'd".

Also, accounting looks weird in top(1).

With a 100% busy machine, top will show something like this :
top - 14:20:11 up 10:22,  1 user,  load average: 2.65, 2.80, 2.18
Tasks: 134 total,   4 running, 128 sleeping,   0 stopped,   2 zombie
Cpu(s): 68.7% us,  6.7% sy, 24.7% ni,  0.0% id,  0.0% wa,  0.0% hi,  0.0%
si Mem:   2076964k total,  2002560k used,    74404k free,   148924k
buffers Swap:  2409740k total,      244k used,  2409496k free,  1448876k
cached

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
 1824 root      36  10 11748 7244 1936 R  4.0  0.3   0:00.12 cc1
 1845 root      31   0  8080 5272 1412 R  1.7  0.3   0:00.05 cc1
 4139 root      20   0  176m  35m 6860 S  1.3  1.7  18:59.35 Xorg
29381 root      20   0 33712  16m  12m R  1.0  0.8   0:27.24 konsole
    3 root      20   0     0    0    0 S  0.3  0.0   0:00.49 events/0
 1529 root      20   0  2556 1460  752 S  0.3  0.1   0:00.05 make
14623 root      20   0  2200 1144  860 R  0.3  0.1   0:00.89 top
    1 root      20   0  1568  532  464 S  0.0  0.0   0:00.22 init
    2 root      39  19     0    0    0 S  0.0  0.0   0:00.01 ksoftirqd/0
    4 root      20   0     0    0    0 S  0.0  0.0   0:00.00 khelper
    5 root      20   0     0    0    0 S  0.0  0.0   0:00.00 kthread
Mmm.. I wonder where all of that 100% CPU went to.. the busiest tasks
are only showing up as 4.0% and 1.7% (when in fact they are using near
100%).

Nothing ever looks like it stays running for very long. That would be enough to account for this sort of top picture.

Sorry, I just don't buy that one.  This was a 2-second sampling interval in top.
top(1) is a program that has to work, so if this scheduler breaks it like this,
then we need to understand and fix top(1) or the scheduler.

What HZ are you running? Do you usually run two makes at different nice levels?

This was HZ=1000, with NO_HZ.  And, no, not normally different nice levels.
Here I was just trying to keep the machine usable while building a couple of 
things.

Keep at it.  Someday this might be good enough for mainline,
but right now the stock scheduler beats it for my desktop (notebook) loads.

Cheers
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to