* Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> results:
>
> (SCHED_FIFO)
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/storage/prog$ sudo chrt -f 10 ./rr_interval
> time_slice: 0 : 0
>
> (SCHED_RR)
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/storage/prog$ sudo chrt 10 ./rr_interval
> time_slice: 0 : 99984800
>
> (SCHED_NORMAL)
>
* Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following patch (sched: disable sleeper_fairness on SCHED_BATCH)
> seems to break GROUP_SCHED. Although, it may be 'oops'-less due to the
> possibility of 'p' being always a valid address.
thanks, applied.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:59:04PM +0200, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> The following patch (sched: disable sleeper_fairness on SCHED_BATCH)
> seems to break GROUP_SCHED. Although, it may be
> 'oops'-less due to the possibility of 'p' being always a valid
> address.
Thanks for catching it! Patch belo
The following patch (sched: disable sleeper_fairness on SCHED_BATCH)
seems to break GROUP_SCHED. Although, it may be
'oops'-less due to the possibility of 'p' being always a valid
address.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fa
On 01/10/2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > here is a few patches on top of the recent 'sched-dev':
> >
> > (1) [ proposal ] make timeslices of SCHED_RR tasks constant and not
> > dependent on task's static_prio;
> >
> > (2) [ cle
* Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> here is a few patches on top of the recent 'sched-dev':
>
> (1) [ proposal ] make timeslices of SCHED_RR tasks constant and not
> dependent on task's static_prio;
>
> (2) [ cleanup ] calc_weighted() is obsolete, remove it;
>
> (3) [ refactoring ]
* Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 21:15 +0200, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> >
> > remove obsolete code -- calc_weighted()
> >
>
> Here's another piece of low hanging obsolete fruit.
>
> Remove obsolete TASK_NONINTERACTIVE.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <[EM
On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 21:15 +0200, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>
> remove obsolete code -- calc_weighted()
>
Here's another piece of low hanging obsolete fruit.
Remove obsolete TASK_NONINTERACTIVE.
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -uprNX /root/dontdiff git/linux-2.6.sched-de
and this one,
make dequeue_entity() / enqueue_entity() and update_stats_dequeue() /
update_stats_enqueue() look similar, structure-wise.
zero effect, functionally-wise.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
index 2674e27.
remove obsolete code -- calc_weighted()
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
index fe4003d..2674e27 100644
--- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -342,17 +342,6 @@ update_stats_wait_start(struct cfs_rq *
here is a few patches on top of the recent 'sched-dev':
(1) [ proposal ] make timeslices of SCHED_RR tasks constant and not
dependent on task's static_prio;
(2) [ cleanup ] calc_weighted() is obsolete, remove it;
(3) [ refactoring ] make dequeue_entity() / enqueue_entity()
and update_stats_de
Ingo Molnar wrote:
Maybe there's more to come: if we can get CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED to work
properly then your Xorg will have a load-independent 50% of CPU time all
to itself.
It seems that perhaps that 50% makes more sense on a single/dual CPU
system than on a more robust one, such as a fou
* Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> humm... I think, it'd be safer to have something like the following
> change in place.
>
> The thing is that __pick_next_entity() must never be called when
> first_fair(cfs_rq) == NULL. It wouldn't be a problem, should
> 'run_node' be the very f
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 11:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Maybe there's more to come: if we can get CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED to work
> properly then your Xorg will have a load-independent 50% of CPU time all
> to itself. (Group scheduling is quite impressive already: i can log in
> as root without
humm... I think, it'd be safer to have something like the following
change in place.
The thing is that __pick_next_entity() must never be called when
first_fair(cfs_rq) == NULL. It wouldn't be a problem, should 'run_node'
be the very first field of 'struct sched_entity' (and it's the second).
Th
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 09:34:20PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 04:44:43PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > The latest sched-devel.git tree can be pulled from:
> >
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mingo/linux-2.6-sched-devel.git
> >
>
>
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 04:44:43PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> The latest sched-devel.git tree can be pulled from:
>
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mingo/linux-2.6-sched-devel.git
>
This is required for it to compile.
---
include/linux/sched.h |1 +
1 files chan
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 08:45 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 23:45 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Lots of scheduler updates in the past few days, done by many people.
> > > Most importantly, the SMP latency problems reported and d
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 01:33:06PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > hm. perhaps this fixup in kernel/sched.c:set_task_cpu():
> >
> > p->se.vruntime -= old_rq->cfs.min_vruntime -
> > new_rq->cfs.min_vruntime;
> >
> > needs to become properly group-hierarchy aware?
You seem to have hit the n
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 03:35:17PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > I tried the following patch. I *think* I see some improvement, wrt
> > latency seen when I type on the shell. Before this patch, I noticed
> > oddities like "kill -9 chew-max-pid" wont kill chew-max (it is queued in
> > runqueue wa
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 18:21 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 12:36:17PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > hm. perhaps this fixup in kernel/sched.c:set_task_cpu():
> >
> > p->se.vruntime -= old_rq->cfs.min_vruntime -
> > new_rq->cfs.min_vruntime;
>
> This definitely
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 14:28 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 15:58 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> > While I try recreating this myself, I wonder if this patch helps?
>
> It didn't here, nor did tweaking root's share. Booting with maxcpus=1,
> I was unable to produce lar
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 12:36:17PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> hm. perhaps this fixup in kernel/sched.c:set_task_cpu():
>
> p->se.vruntime -= old_rq->cfs.min_vruntime - new_rq->cfs.min_vruntime;
This definitely does need some fixup, even though I am not sure yet if
it will solve completel
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 15:58 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> While I try recreating this myself, I wonder if this patch helps?
It didn't here, nor did tweaking root's share. Booting with maxcpus=1,
I was unable to produce large latencies, but didn't try very many
things.
-Mike
-
To u
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hm. perhaps this fixup in kernel/sched.c:set_task_cpu():
>
> p->se.vruntime -= old_rq->cfs.min_vruntime - new_rq->cfs.min_vruntime;
>
> needs to become properly group-hierarchy aware?
a quick first stab like the one below does not appear to so
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 12:41:20AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This doornails the Vaio. After grub handover the screen remains black
> > and the fan goes whir.
> >
> > http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/config-sony.txt
>
> This seems to be UP
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 12:10:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > So the patch below just removes the is_same_group() condition. But i can
> > still see bad (and obvious) latencies with Mike's 2-hogs test:
> >
> > taskset 01 perl -e 'while (1) {
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 12:10:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> So the patch below just removes the is_same_group() condition. But i can
> still see bad (and obvious) latencies with Mike's 2-hogs test:
>
> taskset 01 perl -e 'while (1) {}' &
> nice -19 taskset 02 perl -e 'while (1) {}' &
>
> So
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 11:13:31AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > ok, i'm too seeing some sort of latency weirdness with
> > > CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED enabled, _if_ there's Xorg involved which r
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 11:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 11:13 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > > [...] Latencies of up to 336ms hit me during the recompile (make -j3),
> > > > with nothing else running. Since reboot, late
* Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 11:13 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > > [...] Latencies of up to 336ms hit me during the recompile (make -j3),
> > > with nothing else running. Since reboot, latencies are, so far, very
> > > very nice. [...]
> >
> > 'very ve
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 11:13:31AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > ok, i'm too seeing some sort of latency weirdness with
> > CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED enabled, _if_ there's Xorg involved which runs
> > under root uid on my box - and hence gets 50%
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 11:13:31AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> ok, i'm too seeing some sort of latency weirdness with
> CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED enabled, _if_ there's Xorg involved which runs
> under root uid on my box - and hence gets 50% of all CPU time.
>
> Srivatsa, any ideas? It could either
* S.Çağlar Onur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems like following trivial change needed to compile without
> CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] linux-2.6 $ LC_ALL=C make
> CHK include/linux/version.h
> CHK include/linux/utsrelease.h
> CALLscripts/checksyscalls.sh
> CHK
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 11:13 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > [...] Latencies of up to 336ms hit me during the recompile (make -j3),
> > with nothing else running. Since reboot, latencies are, so far, very
> > very nice. [...]
>
> 'very very nice' == 'best ever' ? :-)
Yes. Very VERY nice feel.
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 14:41 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 02:23:29PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:33:27AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > Darn, have news: latency thing isn't dead. Two busy loops, one at nice
> > > > 0 pinned to
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 14:23 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Mike,
> Do you have FAIR_USER_SCHED turned on as well? Can you send me
> your .config pls?
I did have. gzipped config attached.. this is current though, after
disabling groups. I'm still beating on the basic changes (boy does
* Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > sched_debug (attached) is.. strange.
>
> Disabling CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED fixed both. [...]
heh. Evil plan to enable the group scheduler by default worked out as
planned! ;-) [guess how many container users would do ... interactivity
tests lik
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 02:23:29PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:33:27AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > Darn, have news: latency thing isn't dead. Two busy loops, one at nice
> > > 0 pinned to CPU0, and one at nice 19 pinned to CPU1 produced the
> > > latencies
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:13:27 +0530 Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 12:41:20AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This doornails the Vaio. After grub handover the screen remains black
> > and the fan goes whir.
> >
> > http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/config-so
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:33:27AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Darn, have news: latency thing isn't dead. Two busy loops, one at nice
> > 0 pinned to CPU0, and one at nice 19 pinned to CPU1 produced the
> > latencies below for nice -5 Xorg. Didn't kill the box though.
> >
> > se.wait_max
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 12:41:20AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> This doornails the Vaio. After grub handover the screen remains black
> and the fan goes whir.
>
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/config-sony.txt
This seems to be UP regression. Sorry abt that. I could recreate
the problem very e
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 09:35 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Darn, have news: latency thing isn't dead. Two busy loops, one at nice
> 0 pinned to CPU0, and one at nice 19 pinned to CPU1 produced the
> latencies below for nice -5 Xorg. Didn't kill the box though.
>
> se.wait_max :
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:45:37 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The latest sched-devel.git tree can be pulled from:
>
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mingo/linux-2.6-sched-devel.git
This doornails the Vaio. After grub handover the screen remains black
and the f
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 08:10 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> no news is good news.
Darn, have news: latency thing isn't dead. Two busy loops, one at nice
0 pinned to CPU0, and one at nice 19 pinned to CPU1 produced the
latencies below for nice -5 Xorg. Didn't kill the box though.
se.wait_max
Hi;
25 Eyl 2007 Sal tarihinde, Ingo Molnar şunları yazmıştı:
>
> The latest sched-devel.git tree can be pulled from:
>
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mingo/linux-2.6-sched-devel.git
>
> Lots of scheduler updates in the past few days, done by many people.
> Most importan
* Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 23:45 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Lots of scheduler updates in the past few days, done by many people.
> > Most importantly, the SMP latency problems reported and debugged by
> > Mike
> > Galbraith should be fixed for good now
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 23:45 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Mike Galbraith (2):
> sched: fix SMP migration latencies
> sched: fix formatting of /proc/sched_debug
Off-by-one bug in attribution, rocks and sticks (down boy!) don't
count ;-) I just built, and will spend the morning beating o
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 23:45 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Lots of scheduler updates in the past few days, done by many people.
> Most importantly, the SMP latency problems reported and debugged by
> Mike
> Galbraith should be fixed for good now.
Does this have anything to do with idle balancing ?
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:45:37 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > The latest sched-devel.git tree can be pulled from:
> >
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mingo/linux-2.6-sched-devel.git
>
> I'm pulling
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:45:37 +0200
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The latest sched-devel.git tree can be pulled from:
>
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mingo/linux-2.6-sched-devel.git
I'm pulling linux-2.6-sched.git, and it's oopsing all over the place on
ia64,
51 matches
Mail list logo
