On Monday 23 April 2007 00:22, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Sunday 22 April 2007 21:42, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > Willy I'm still investigating the idle time and fluctuating load as a > > separate issue. Is it possible the multiple ocbench processes are > > naturally synchronising and desynchronising and choosing to sleep and/or > > run at the same time? I can remove the idle time entirely by running > > ocbench at nice 19 which means they are all forced to run at basically > > the same time by the scheduler. > > > > Anyway the more important part is... Can you test this patch please? Dump > > all the other patches I sent you post 045. Michael, if you could test too > > please? > > OK, it's better now. All tasks equally run.
Excellent thank you very much (again!) > X is still somewhat jerky, even > at nice -19. I'm sure it happens when it's waiting in the other array. We > should definitely manage to get rid of this if we want to ensure low > latency. Yeah that would be correct. It's clearly possible to keep the whole design philosophy and priority system intact with SD and do away with the arrays if it becomes a continuous stream instead of two arrays but that requires some architectural changes. I've been concentrating on nailing all the remaining issues (and they kept cropping up as you've seen *blush*). However... I haven't quite figured out how to do that architectural change just yet either so let's just iron out all the bugs out of this now. > Just FYI, the idle is often close to zero and the load is often close to > 30, even if still fluctuating : > Hoping this helps ! I can say without a shadow of a doubt it has helped :) I'll respin the patch slightly differently and post it and release as v0.46. > Willy -- -ck - 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/