Bah, I notice that I poked reply. Doesn't matter, but for interested
readers...
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 15:31 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > I'll try this patch later (errands).
> >
> > This is sched-devel with your first patch still applied. Much evilness.
> > At first, I had much idle tim
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 13:50 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 08:38:24AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Here, it does not. It seems fine without CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED.
>
> My hunch is its because of the vruntime driven preemption which shoots
> up latencies (and the
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 08:38:24AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Here, it does not. It seems fine without CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED.
My hunch is its because of the vruntime driven preemption which shoots
up latencies (and the fact perhaps that Peter hasnt't focused more on SMP case
yet!).
Curious
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 05:28 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Lukas Hejtmanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:25:51PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > The patch is against 2.6.25-rc1. I would request you to check for
> > > difference it makes with CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_
* Lukas Hejtmanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:25:51PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > The patch is against 2.6.25-rc1. I would request you to check for
> > difference it makes with CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED and
> > CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED turned on.
>
> well, I trie
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:25:51PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> The patch is against 2.6.25-rc1. I would request you to check for
> difference it makes with CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED and
> CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED turned on.
well, I tried the patch against 2.6.25-rc2-git1. It seems to be better
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 02:56:09PM +0100, Lukas Hejtmanek wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I noticed short thread in LKM regarding "sched: add vslice" causes horrible
> interactivity under load.
>
> I can see similar behavior. If I stress both CPU cores, even typing on
> keyboard suffers from huge latencies,
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 03:45:10PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > see my previous mail to Ingo (you were Cc.), latency top says that Xorg and
> > gnome-terminal suffers 300+ms latency in scheduler: waiting for cpu.
>
> what happens when you turn CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED off?
If I disable CONFIG_
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 15:36 +0100, Lukas Hejtmanek wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 12:36:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I can't reproduce this with a pure cpu load. I started 10
> > while :; do :; done &
> > instances and aside from slowing down, nothing bad happened.
>
> yes, while tr
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 12:36:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I can't reproduce this with a pure cpu load. I started 10
> while :; do :; done &
> instances and aside from slowing down, nothing bad happened.
yes, while true; do true; does nothing wrong. But running make -j2 in kernel
sources
* Lukas Hejtmanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 01:01:32PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Lukas Hejtmanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > but in such a case, kernel 2.6.24-git13 does oops at startup in
> > > sched_slice.
> >
> > could you tell me more about th
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 01:01:32PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Lukas Hejtmanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > but in such a case, kernel 2.6.24-git13 does oops at startup in
> > sched_slice.
>
> could you tell me more about this oops? You booted unmodified, latest
> -git and it oopsed in
* Lukas Hejtmanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but in such a case, kernel 2.6.24-git13 does oops at startup in
> sched_slice.
could you tell me more about this oops? You booted unmodified, latest
-git and it oopsed in sched_slice()? The patch below should work around
any oopses in sched_slice
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 12:17 +0100, Lukas Hejtmanek wrote:
> Ingo,
>
> any progress here? I've tried to revert this patch:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=67e9fb2a39a1d454218d50383094940982be138f
>
> as it was marked as suspicious patch in this ca
Ingo,
any progress here? I've tried to revert this patch:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=67e9fb2a39a1d454218d50383094940982be138f
as it was marked as suspicious patch in this case
(http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0801.3/1665.html
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 11:29:19AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> if you apply the current sched-fixes (rollup patch below), does it get
> any better?
No.
Another observation, running two instances of while true; do true; done (on
1 dual core cpu) does not break interactivity.
running make clean;
* Lukas Hejtmanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I noticed short thread in LKM regarding "sched: add vslice" causes
> horrible interactivity under load.
>
> I can see similar behavior. If I stress both CPU cores, even typing on
> keyboard suffers from huge latencies, I can see letters appearing
17 matches
Mail list logo
