At 08:12 PM 3/10/2003 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
>> Contest uses a modified process load from irman so it exhibits similar
>> behaviour. Not sure what +12 actually tells me though :-(
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:05:25AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Aha! No wonder your symptoms look so similar. +12 is just a magic number
> that works... found by trusty old trial and error method. What I wanted to
> see was if your hang would also go away with the same magic number, or if
> renicing with any value helped you at all.
At 08:12 PM 3/10/2003 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
>> My simplistic understanding is that the pipe task in process_load gets
>> constantly elevated as "interactive" by the new scheduler, and nothing else
>> ever happens.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:05:25AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Appears so. I can make it "work" by doing a dinky (butt ugly:) tweak in
> activate_task().
IMHO directed yields should attempt to prevent priority inversion but
not elevate priorities otherwise. I'd bug mingo about it.
-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:21 EST