Re: Ten percent test

[Ingo Molnar]

* Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> To be expected, there are after all, only so many cpu cycles to go 
> around.  Here I sit, running 2.6.21-rc6 ATM, and since there is not an 
> SD patch that applies cleanly to rc6, I am back to typing half or more 
> of a sentence blind while I answer a posting such as this because of x 
> starvation while kmail is sorting incoming stuff.

it would be really nice to analyze this. Does the latest -rt patch boot 
on your box so that we could trace this regression? (I can send you a 
standalone tracing patch if it doesnt.) IIRC you reported that one of 
the early patches from Mike made your system behave good (but still not 
as good as SD) - it would be nice to try a later patch too.

basically, the current unfairness in the scheduler should be solved, one 
way or another. Good testcases were posted and there's progress.

> (who the hell runs a 'make -j 200' or 50 while(1)'s in the real world?

not many - and i dont think Mike tested any of these - Mike tested 
pretty low make -j values (Mike, can you confirm?).

(I personally routinely run 'make -j 200' build jobs on my box [because
 it's the central server of a build cluster and high parallelism is
 needed to overcome network latencies], but i'm pretty special in that
 regard and i didnt use that workload as a test against any of these
 schedulers.)

	Ingo
-
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/