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

[Con Kolivas]

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. In 
essence this is why the NFS client interactive case is not as nice - the NFS 
code doesn't do "work on behalf of" a cpu hog with the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE 
state. The uninterruptible sleep detection logic made a massive difference to 
interactivity when cpu bound tasks do disk I/O.

Cheers,
Con
-
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/