On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 10:10:05AM +0200, Keith Packard wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 09:22 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > which allows xterm-spam (attached) to easily flood the xterm (without
> > any scrolling that would act as a throttle) and the xterm to flood Xorg.
...deleting the offhand
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 10:40:07AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> yeah, i use gnome-terminal exclusively. But testers looking for CFS
> regressions do run every shell on the planet :-)
...and people running older kernels get different results (no surprise)
fwiw, I ran 'top' on 5 terminals with xter
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ah. That indeed makes sense. It seems like the xterm doesnt process the
> Ctrl-C/Z keypresses _at all_ when it is 'spammed' with output. Normally,
> output 'spam' is throttled by the scroll buffer's overhead. But in
> Vegard's case, the printout invol
On 7/3/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
does it still get more CPU time than you'd expect it to get? A reniced
or SCHED_IDLE task will 'fill in' any idle time that it senses, so in
itself it's not an anomaly if a task gets 50% and FEH fills in the
remaining 50%. Does it still get CPU ti
* Keith Packard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 09:22 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > which allows xterm-spam (attached) to easily flood the xterm
> > (without any scrolling that would act as a throttle) and the xterm
> > to flood Xorg.
>
> It's just an Xterm bug.
>
> Xter
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 09:22 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> which allows xterm-spam (attached) to easily flood the xterm (without
> any scrolling that would act as a throttle) and the xterm to flood Xorg.
It's just an Xterm bug.
Xterm will look for X input if it ever manages to fill the input buff
* Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This doesn't appear to be a CFS problem. I can reproduce the problem
> easily in virgin 2.6.22-rc7 by starting xterm-spam at nice -1 or
> better. As soon as xterm-spam can get enough CPU to keep the xterm
> fully busy, it's game over, the xterm fr
* Vegard Nossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd also like to point out that [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems to draw more CPU
> than it should. Or, at least, in top, it shows up as using 50% CPU
> even though other processes are demanding as much as they can get. The
> FAH program should be running wi
On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 18:40 +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > thx. As an initial matter, could you double-check whether your v18
> > kernel source has the patch below applied already?
> >
> > Ingo
> >
> > Index: linux/kernel/sched_fair.c
> >
On 7/2/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ok. Does the xterm slowdown get any better if you do:
echo 46 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_features
? The default on v18 is:
echo 14 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_features
No. The Ctrl-C still hangs between 1 and 3 seconds, again seemingly
dependi
* Vegard Nossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > thx. As an initial matter, could you double-check whether your v18
> > kernel source has the patch below applied already?
>
> It does.
ok. Does the xterm slowdown get any better if you do:
echo 46 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_features
? The default
On 7/2/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
thx. As an initial matter, could you double-check whether your v18
kernel source has the patch below applied already?
Ingo
Index: linux/kernel/sched_fair.c
===
--- linux.ori
* Vegard Nossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Resulting files at
> http://vegard.afraid.org:1104/pub/cfs/
>
> cfs-debug-info-2007.07.02-15:18:13Before running program
> cfs-debug-info-2007.07.02-15:19:51~10 secs after start
> cfs-debug-info-2007.07.02-15:20:54~1 minute after start
> c
Vegard Nossum wrote:
Hello,
On 6/23/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i'm pleased to announce release -v18 of the CFS scheduler patchset.
As usual, any sort of feedback, bugreport, fix and suggestion is more
than welcome!
I have been running cfs-v18 for a couple of days now, and t
On 7/2/07, Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 02/07/07, Vegard Nossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been running cfs-v18 for a couple of days now, and today I
> stumbled upon a rather strange problem. Consider the following short
> program:
>
> while(1)
> printf("%ld\r",
On 02/07/07, Vegard Nossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
On 6/23/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i'm pleased to announce release -v18 of the CFS scheduler patchset.
> As usual, any sort of feedback, bugreport, fix and suggestion is more
> than welcome!
I have been running cfs-
Hello,
On 6/23/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i'm pleased to announce release -v18 of the CFS scheduler patchset.
As usual, any sort of feedback, bugreport, fix and suggestion is more
than welcome!
I have been running cfs-v18 for a couple of days now, and today I
stumbled upon a
Hi Ingo,
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:45:01AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> could you check whether your current v18 CFS tree has the fix below
> included? I discovered it right after having released v18 so i updated
> the v18 files in place - but maybe you downloaded an early version? I
> thought
Willy,
could you check whether your current v18 CFS tree has the fix below
included? I discovered it right after having released v18 so i updated
the v18 files in place - but maybe you downloaded an early version? I
thought it's relatively harmless, that it would only affect SCHED_IDLE
tasks,
* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo,
>
> I've accidentally discovered a problem with -v18.
>
> Some time ago, I wrote a small program to prevent my laptop from
> entering low-power mode, and noticed that after upgrading my laptop's
> kernel from 2.4.20.9+cfs-v6 to 2.4.20.14+cfs-
Ingo,
I've accidentally discovered a problem with -v18.
Some time ago, I wrote a small program to prevent my laptop from entering
low-power mode, and noticed that after upgrading my laptop's kernel from
2.4.20.9+cfs-v6 to 2.4.20.14+cfs-v18, it completely freezes if I run this
program.
The progra
* Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -Message d'origine-
> > De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Ingo Molnar
> > Envoyé : 22 juin 2007 18:02
> >
> > i'm pleased to announce release -v18 of the CFS scheduler patchset.
> >
> > The rol
> -Message d'origine-
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Ingo Molnar
> Envoyé : 22 juin 2007 18:02
>
> i'm pleased to announce release -v18 of the CFS scheduler patchset.
>
> The rolled-up CFS patch against today's -git kernel,
> v2.6.22-rc5, v2.6.22-rc4-
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the main reason is the sched debugging stuff:
>
> That would serve to explain the 18% growth on x86_64. But why did
> i386 grow by much more: 29%? I'd be suspecting all the new 64-bit
> arithmetic.
this is what i see on 32-bit:
textdat
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:38:13 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > - __exit_signal() does apparently-unlocked 64-bit arith. Is there
> > some implicit locking here or do we not care about the occasional
> > race-induced inaccuracy?
>
> do you mean the tsk->se.sum_exec_runtime
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I locally generated the diff to take -mm up to the above version of
> CFS.
thx. I released a diff against mm2:
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/sched-cfs-v2.6.22-rc4-mm2-v18.patch
but indeed the -git diff serves you better if you u
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 00:20:36 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * S.Çağlar Onur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > kernel/sched.c:745:28: sched_idletask.c: No such file or directory
> >
> > Ahh and this happens with [1], grabbing sched_idletask.c from .18 one
> > solves
> > the
2007/6/24, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
* Antonino Ingargiola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, I've discovered with great pleasure that CFS has also the
> SCHED_ISO priority. I may have missed something, but I don't remember
> to have read this in any of the CFS release notes :). For me
* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I have no idea about what version brought that unexpected
> > > behaviour, but it's clearly something which needs to be tracked
> > > down.
> >
> > hm, the two problems might be related. Could you try v17 perhaps? In
> > v18 i have 'unified' al
Hi Ingo,
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 05:52:14PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Today I had a little time to try CFS again (last time it was -v9!). I
> > ran it on top of 2.6.20.14, and simply tried ocbench again. You
> > remember ? With -v9, I ran 64
* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today I had a little time to try CFS again (last time it was -v9!). I
> ran it on top of 2.6.20.14, and simply tried ocbench again. You
> remember ? With -v9, I ran 64 processes which all progressed very
> smoothly. With -v18, it's not the case anym
* Antonino Ingargiola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, I've discovered with great pleasure that CFS has also the
> SCHED_ISO priority. I may have missed something, but I don't remember
> to have read this in any of the CFS release notes :). For me this is a
> really useful feature. Thanks.
2007/6/23, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
* Antonino Ingargiola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/6/23, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >i'm pleased to announce release -v18 of the CFS scheduler patchset.
>
> I'm running -v18 on 2.6.22-rc5, no problems so far. How can I change a
> task
* Antonino Ingargiola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/6/23, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >i'm pleased to announce release -v18 of the CFS scheduler patchset.
>
> I'm running -v18 on 2.6.22-rc5, no problems so far. How can I change a
> task to SCHED_IDLE or SCHED_BATCH priority under
Hi Ingo,
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:02:02AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> i'm pleased to announce release -v18 of the CFS scheduler patchset.
>
> The rolled-up CFS patch against today's -git kernel, v2.6.22-rc5,
> v2.6.22-rc4-mm2, v2.6.21.5 or v2.6.20.14 can be downloaded from the
> usual plac
Hi,
2007/6/23, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
i'm pleased to announce release -v18 of the CFS scheduler patchset.
I'm running -v18 on 2.6.22-rc5, no problems so far. How can I change a
task to SCHED_IDLE or SCHED_BATCH priority under CFS?
Thanks,
~ Antonio
-
To unsubscribe from this l
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>* Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> patching file kernel/softirq.c
>> patching file kernel/sysctl.c
>> The next patch would delete the file l/kernel/sched.c,
>> which does not exist! Assume -R? [n]
>>
>> How to proceed?
>
>oops - just ignore i
* Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> patching file kernel/softirq.c
> patching file kernel/sysctl.c
> The next patch would delete the file l/kernel/sched.c,
> which does not exist! Assume -R? [n]
>
> How to proceed?
oops - just ignore it, or re-download the patch (i fixed it).
On Friday 22 June 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>i'm pleased to announce release -v18 of the CFS scheduler patchset.
>
>The rolled-up CFS patch against today's -git kernel, v2.6.22-rc5,
>v2.6.22-rc4-mm2, v2.6.21.5 or v2.6.20.14 can be downloaded from the
>usual place:
>
> http://people.redhat.com/ming
* S.Çağlar Onur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > kernel/sched.c:745:28: sched_idletask.c: No such file or directory
>
> Ahh and this happens with [1], grabbing sched_idletask.c from .18 one solves
> the problem...
oops, indeed - i've fixed up the -git patch:
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs
23 Haz 2007 Cts tarihinde, S.Çağlar Onur şunları yazmıştı:
> Hi Ingo;
>
> 23 Haz 2007 Cts tarihinde, Ingo Molnar şunları yazmıştı:
> > As usual, any sort of feedback, bugreport, fix and suggestion is more
> > than welcome!
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] linux-2.6 $ LC_ALL=C make
> CHK include/linux/v
Hi Ingo;
23 Haz 2007 Cts tarihinde, Ingo Molnar şunları yazmıştı:
> As usual, any sort of feedback, bugreport, fix and suggestion is more
> than welcome!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] linux-2.6 $ LC_ALL=C make
CHK include/linux/version.h
CHK include/linux/utsrelease.h
CALLscripts/checksysc
42 matches
Mail list logo
