Re: Regression seen for patch "sched:dont decrease idle sleep avg"

From: Con Kolivas
Date: Wed May 17 2006 - 08:46:43 EST

On Wednesday 17 May 2006 21:42, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Fair? I said interactivity wise. But what the heck, if we're talking
> fairness, I can say the same thing about I/O bound tasks. Heck, it's
> not fair to stop any task from reaching the top, and it's certainly not
> fair to let them have (for all practical purposes) all the cpu they want
> once they sleep enough.

Toss out the I/O bound thing and we turn into a steaming dripping pile of dog
doo whenever anything does disk I/O. And damned if there aren't a lot of pcs
that have hard disks...

> Shoot, the scheduler is unfair even without any
> interactivity code. Long term, it splits tasks into two groups... those
> that sleep for more than 50% of the time... yack yack yack... zzzzz
> Let's stick to the interactivity side :)

It's a deal.

> > only ever sleeps for long sleeps to prevent it getting as good priority
> > as anything else that uses only 1% cpu. I've noticed that 'top' suffers
> > this fate for example. The problem I've had all along with thud as a test
> > case is that while it causes a pause on the system for potentially a few
> > seconds, it does this by raising the load transiently to a load of 50 (or
> > whatever you set it to). I have no problem with a system having a hiccup
> > when the load is 50, provided the system eventually recovers and isn't
> > starved forever (which it isn't). There are other means to prevent one
> > user having that many running tasks if so desired.
> Three of the little buggers are enough to cause plenty of pain.

Spits and stutters are not starvation. Luckily it gets no worse with this

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at