Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix adverse effects of NFS client on interactive response

[Mike Galbraith]

At 08:30 PM 1/7/2006 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 07 January 2006 16:27, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >   Personally, I think that all TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE sleeps should be
> > > treated as non interactive rather than just be heavily discounted (and
> > > that TASK_NONINTERACTIVE shouldn't be needed in conjunction with it) BUT
> > > I may be wrong especially w.r.t. media streamers such as audio and video
> > > players and the mechanisms they use to do sleeps between cpu bursts.
> >
> > Try it, you won't like it.  When I first examined sleep_avg woes, my
> > reaction was to nuke uninterruptible sleep too... boy did that ever _suck_
> > :)
>
> Glad you've seen why I put the uninterruptible sleep logic in there.

Yeah, if there's one thing worse than too much preemption, it's too little 
preemption.

        -Mike

-
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/