On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 19:15 +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
> It seems to highly depend on # of processes and at present, Ingo's patch
> looks better.
Yeah, Ingo's patch forces the array switch where I try to avoid it if at
all possible. I'm looking ways to know for sure that you just have to
bite
Hi Mike,
> I puttered around with your testcase a bit, and didn't see interactive
> tasks starving other interactive tasks so much as plain old interactive
> tasks starving expired tasks, which they're supposed to be able to do,
I inserted a trace code observing all context switches into the kern
Hi Ingo,
> > > Hi Ingo and all,
> > >
> > > When I was executing massive interactive processes, I found that some
> > > of them occupy CPU time and the others hardly run.
> >
> > yeah.
> >
> > > I also attach the test program which easily recreates this problem.
> >
> > thanks, this is really
(oops, wrong button, went without CCs. sorry for duplicate)
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 13:45 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > + struct task_struct *p = NULL;
>
> (small nit: extra space at the end of line.)
>
> > + rq->best_e
* Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + struct task_struct *p = NULL;
(small nit: extra space at the end of line.)
> + rq->best_expired_prio = MAX_PRIO;
> +#if 0
> + rq->switch_timestamp = jiffies;
> +#endif
remove this chunk
Greetings!
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 07:04 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 10:34 +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
> > When I was executing massive interactive processes, I found that some of
> > them
> > occupy CPU time and the others hardly run.
> >
> > It seems that some of proc
Hi Ingo,
At Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:14:20 +0200,
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>
> * Satoru Takeuchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ingo and all,
> >
> > When I was executing massive interactive processes, I found that some
> > of them occupy CPU time and the others hardly run.
>
> yeah.
>
> > I al
* Satoru Takeuchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Ingo and all,
>
> When I was executing massive interactive processes, I found that some
> of them occupy CPU time and the others hardly run.
yeah.
> I also attach the test program which easily recreates this problem.
thanks, this is really he
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 10:34 +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
> Hi Ingo and all,
Hi,
> When I was executing massive interactive processes, I found that some of them
> occupy CPU time and the others hardly run.
>
> It seems that some of processes which occupy CPU time always has max effective
> prio
9 matches
Mail list logo
