On Saturday 07 April 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: >* Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Yes it would be Ingo, but so far, none of the recent -rt patches has booted on this machine, the last one I tried a few days ago failing to find /dev/root, whatever the heck that is. FWIW, I gave up on the rt stuffs 6 months or more ago when the regressions I was reporting weren't ever acknowledged. I don't enjoy sitting through all these e2fsk's during the reboot just to have things I normally run in the background die, like tvtime, sitting there with some news channel muttering along in the background. I was even ignored when I suggested it might be a dma problem, which I still think it could be. Nevertheless, the patch you sent is building as I type, intermittently when the screen deigns to update so I can fix the spelling etc. >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.) And I'd wager a cool one that you don't gain more than a second or so in compile time between a make -j8 and a make -j200 unless your network is a pair of tomato juice cans & some string. Again, to me, the network thing is not something that's present in an everyday users environment. My drives are all here and now, on pata-133 interfaces. > Ingo -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) If you would keep a secret from an enemy, tell it not to a friend. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
