Re: [SCHED] Totally WRONG prority calculation with specifictest-case (since 2.6.10-bk12)

[Paolo Ornati]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:09:18 +0100
Paolo Ornati <ornati@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I've found an easy-to-reproduce-for-me test case that shows a totally
> wrong priority calculation: basically a CPU-intensitive process gets
> better priority than a disk-intensitive one (dd if=bigfile
> of=/dev/null ...).
> 
> Seems impossible, isn't it?
> 
> ---- THE NUMBERS with 2.6.15-rc7 -----
> 
> The test-case is the Xvid encoding of dvd-ripped track with transcode
> (using "dvd::rip" interface). The copied-and-pasted command line is
> this:
> 
> mkdir -m 0775 -p '/home/paolo/tmp/test/tmp' &&
> cd /home/paolo/tmp/test/tmp && dr_exec transcode -H 10 -a 2 -x vob,null
> -i /home/paolo/tmp/test/vob/003 -w 1198,50 -b 128,0,0 -s 1.972
> --a52_drc_off -f 25 -Y 52,8,52,8 -B 27,10,8 -R 1 -y xvid4,null
> -o /dev/null --print_status 20 && echo DVDRIP_SUCCESS mkdir -m 0775 -p
> '/home/paolo/tmp/test/tmp' && cd /home/paolo/tmp/test/tmp && dr_exec
> transcode -H 10 -a 2 -x vob -i /home/paolo/tmp/test/vob/003 -w 1198,50
> -b 128,0,0 -s 1.972 --a52_drc_off -f 25 -Y 52,8,52,8 -B 27,10,8 -R 2 -y
> xvid4 -o /home/paolo/tmp/test/avi/003/test-003.avi --print_status 20 &&
> echo DVDRIP_SUCCESS
> 
> 
> Here there is a TOP snapshot while running it:
> 
>   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
>  5721 paolo     16   0  115m  18m 2428 R 84.4  3.7   0:15.11 transcode
>  5736 paolo     25   0 50352 4516 1912 R  8.4  0.9   0:01.53 tcdecode
>  5725 paolo     15   0  115m  18m 2428 S  4.6  3.7   0:00.84 transcode
>  5738 paolo     18   0  115m  18m 2428 S  0.8  3.7   0:00.15 transcode
>  5734 paolo     25   0 20356 1140  920 S  0.6  0.2   0:00.12 tcdemux
>  5731 paolo     25   0 47312 2540 1996 R  0.4  0.5   0:00.08 tcdecode
>  5319 root      15   0  166m  16m 2584 S  0.2  3.2   0:25.06 X
>  5444 paolo     16   0 87116  22m  15m R  0.2  4.6   0:04.05 konsole
>  5716 paolo     16   0 10424 1160  876 R  0.2  0.2   0:00.06 top
>  5735 paolo     25   0 22364 1436  932 S  0.2  0.3   0:00.01 tcextract
> 
> 
> DD running alone:
> 
> paolo@tux /mnt $ mount space/; time dd if=space/bigfile of=/dev/null bs=1M count=128; umount space/
> 128+0 records in
> 128+0 records out
> 
> real    0m4.052s
> user    0m0.000s
> sys     0m0.209s
> 
> DD while transcoding:
> 
> paolo@tux /mnt $ mount space/; time dd if=space/bigfile of=/dev/null bs=1M count=128; umount space/
> 128+0 records in
> 128+0 records out
> 
> real    0m26.121s
> user    0m0.001s
> sys     0m0.255s
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> I've tried older kernels finding that 2.6.11 is the first affected.
> 
> Going on with testing...
> 
>         2.6.11-rc[1-5]:
> 2.6.11-rc3 bad
> 2.6.11-rc1 bad
> 
>         2.6.10-bk[1-14]
> 2.6.10-bk7 good
> 2.6.10-bk11 good
> 2.6.10-bk13 bad
> 2.6.10-bk12 bad
> 
> So the problem was introduced with:
> 	>> 2.6.10-bk12 09-Jan-2005 <<
> 
> The exact behaviour is different with 2.6.11/12/13/14... for example:
> with 2.6.11 the priority of "transcode" is initially set to ~25 and go
> down to 17/18 when running DD.
> 
> The problem doesn't seem 100% reproducible with every kernel, sometimes
> a "BAD" kernel looks "GOOD"... or maybe it was me confused by too
> much compile/install/reboot/test work ;)
> 
> Other INFO:
> - I'm on x86_64
> - preemption ON/OFF doesn't make any differences
> 
> 
> Can anyone reproduce this?
> IOW: is this affecting only my machine?
> 

Hello Con and Ingo... I've found that the above problem goes away
by reverting this:

http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/cset@41e054c6pwNQXzErMxvfh4IpLPXA5A?nav=index.html|src/|src/include|src/include/linux|related/include/linux/sched.h

--------------------------------------------------

[PATCH] sched: remove_interactive_credit

Special casing tasks by interactive credit was helpful for preventing fully
cpu bound tasks from easily rising to interactive status.

However it did not select out tasks that had periods of being fully cpu
bound and then sleeping while waiting on pipes, signals etc.  This led to a
more disproportionate share of cpu time.

Backing this out will no longer special case only fully cpu bound tasks,
and prevents the variable behaviour that occurs at startup before tasks
declare themseleves interactive or not, and speeds up application startup
slightly under certain circumstances.  It does cost in interactivity
slightly as load rises but it is worth it for the fairness gains.

Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>

--------------------------------------------------


Maybe this change has revealed a scheduler weakness ?

I'm glad to test any patch or give more data :)

Bye,

-- 
	Paolo Ornati
	Linux 2.6.10-bk12-int_credit on x86_64
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/